Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.

The CLERK at the TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bridlington Corporation Bill,

Commercial Gas Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Dewsbury Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Great Western Railway Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mablethorpe and Sutton Urban District Council Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Manchester Corporation Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

Manchester Ship Canal Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mersey Tunnel Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Norwich Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill,

Preston Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

St. Helens Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Sheffield Extension Bill,

Sidmouth Urban District Council Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

York Corporation Transport Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Buckingham and Oxford) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Taunton and District Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ANGLO-INDIAN EDUCATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what action he has taken or proposes to take on the Round Table Conference Report on Anglo-Indian Education; and when does he expect the scheme to start operation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The report has been forwarded to the Government of India, and I know that it is already under examination there. I hope that it will be possible to take early action in regard to the recommendations in the report which do not require legislation.

GOLD RESERVES.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what was the total amount of India's gold reserves in each of the past 10 years; and what action the Government propose to take with a view to strengthening these reserves?

Sir S. HOARE: On the 31st January, 1933, the gold held in the Gold Standard and Paper Currency Reserves amounted to about £33¼ millions, valued at par, in addition to a sterling holding of £25¾ millions. Figures for earlier years are given in the Statistical Abstract for British India (Cmd. 4109 of 1932), and in the annual Reports of the Controller of the Currency, which are available in the Library of the House. The further strengthening of the Reserves is an accepted object of policy, but the precise steps to be taken to this end must depend on circumstances. In the past 12 months they have been strengthened by £l5½ millions sterling.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the £15,000,000 additional reserves have come from, whether by direct purchase from this country or from some other part of the world?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; it is the result of a wise financial policy which balanced the Budget.

RENT, REVENUE AND IRRIGATION DUES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what remissions of rent, revenue, and irrigation dues, respectively, have been made in the several provinces of British India during each of the past three years; and, where such remissions have been made, what proportion they bear in each case to the total amounts of rent, revenue, and irrigation dues received in any one year?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not in possession of this information, but will ask the Government of India to furnish it so far as may be possible without undue labour.

ROYAL BOMBAY SAPPERS AND MINERS.

Captain FULLER: 4 and 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) in what circumstances the General Officer Commander in Chief, Southern Command, India, recently issued an order prohibiting Sikhs in the Royal Bombay Sappers and Miners at Kirkee from carrying arms for a period of 12 days; and if this action had the approval of the Commander-in-Chief in India;
(2) if he has any information suggesting the reason for the recent attack by a Sikh lance naik on a British officer of the Royal Bombay Sappers and Miners?

Sir S. HOARE: There are grounds for believing that the attack was intended as a protest against the transfer of Mazbi Sikhs from disbanded Pioneer Battalions to the Bombay Sappers and Miners. Pending the results of an inquiry into the outrage the Army Commander issued the order referred to as a precautionary measure. The Government of India have every confidence that he dealt with the situation in a prompt and proper manner.

BURMA.

Captain FULLER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if, in view of the result of the recent election held in Burma on the separation issue, he will state the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the future of Burma?

Mr. HANNON: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make a statement on the present position of Burma in relation to its future association or otherwise with an All-India federation?

Sir S. HOARE: At the close of the Burma Round Table Conference last year
my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that after a general election at which the broad issue of separation from India or inclusion in an Indian Federation had been placed before the electorate, the representatives of the people of Burma in the Legislative Council would be afforded the opportunity to choose between, on the one hand, Separation, in which case Burma would be given, subject to the approval of Parliament, a constitution such as he depicted, and, on the other hand, remaining a Province of India with the prospect of inclusion, like the other Provinces, in the projected Indian Federation. The election took place in November; and at the end of December the newly elected Council adopted without a division a resolution which rejected both the alternatives offered by His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government are unable to find in the resolution of the Burma Council any indication of a choice between the alternatives offered by His Majesty's Government, and are considering whether any steps are possible on their part towards the removal of this barrier to constitutional advance in Barma.

Captain FULLER: Will my right hon. Friend say when an announcement is likely to be made regarding the constitution?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I could not give anything in the nature of a definite date to-day.

CONSPIRACY TRIALS.

Mr. HICKS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Government of India to drop the Delhi conspiracy case, in which, the 14 prisoners were charged with conspiracy to commit murder, dacoity, manufacture explosives, and obtain illegal possession of arms; whether he is aware that this case had been proceeding for more than 21 months and not half the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, the first witness taking seven months; that the Government of India estimate that the hearing of all their witnesses would take four years and the whole case five years, at an annual cost of £26,000 to the Indian revenues; and whether he will take steps to have the procedure in the Indian criminal courts expedited in the interests
both of justice and of economy to the Indian exchequer?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. It was decided to drop the general conspiracy charge, but to proceed against certain of the accused individually on specific charges. I can assure the hon. Member that I have for some time been gravely concerned at the length of these trials, but the problem is exceedingly complicated.

Mr. HICKS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is to take steps to expedite these trials—other trials not mentioned in the question?

Sir S. HOARE: As I say, I have been gravely exercised by the present state of affairs. The difficulty is the complexity of the Indian statute law. I am in correspondence with the Government of India on the subject. I agree with the lion. Member that the present state of affairs is almost intolerable.

SALARY CUTS.

Mr. HICKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to restore, in the coming financial year, the cuts in salaries made in the civil, military, and railway all-India services, respectively; and what is the amount of the total cuts made in these respective services as at present in force?

Sir S. HOARE: It is unfortunately necessary to continue the emergency cuts for a further year but I am glad to say that it has been found possible to reduce the amount. Legislation will be required in this connection and I have already introduced a Bill which I hope will be taken in this House at a very early date when the details of the proposed reductions will be explained.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S ORDINANCE (HIGH COURT JUDGMENT).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 9.
asked the Secretary of: State for India whether he has received any information as to the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta with reference to the right of the Governor-General to repromulgate an Ordinance: and, if so, what are the terms of the judgment?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no official information but I have seen a Press report of a case which is possibly that which the
hon. Member has in mind. It was an application to the High Court at Calcutta to set aside an order for forfeiture of security passed under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act as amended by the Special Powers Ordinance, one ground for the application being that the Ordinance could have no legal force as it was promulgated by the Governor-General after a period of six months. The Chief Justice is reported to have expressed the opinion that there was nothing to prevent the Governor-General from promulgating another Ordinance if he thought necessary.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make official inquiry into this matter with a view to giving us official information?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly.

TIBET (CONVENTIONS).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is in existence any trade or economic treaty between the Government of India and the Government of Tibet; and, if so, what are the terms of any such agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the relevant provisions of the Anglo-Tibetan Conventions of 1904, the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 and the Regulations agreed upon between Great Britain, China and Tibet in 1908. These documents are published in Volume XIV of the 5th edition of Aitchison's Treaties, copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these documents involve any military commitments at all?

Sir S. HOARE: I should like notice of that question in order to give a specific answer. My answer to-day would be "No," but I should like to have the question repeated.

ALWAR.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DONNER:

11. To ask the Secretary of State for India whether an impartial investigation will be made as to the causes of the recent rising in Alwar?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Did you call Question 11?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): No.

Sir S. HOARE: That question has been withdrawn.

SALT (IMPORTS).

Mr. JOHN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India what were the imports of foreign salt into India up to the 31st March, 1932, having regard to the provisions of the Salt (Additional Import Duty) Act, 1931, and also for the period of the first five months of the current fiscal year?

Sir S. HOARE: As the reply contains a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Imports of Salt into India.


Period.
Quantity.
Value.


Financial Year ended 31st March, 1932.
Tons.
Rupees.


United Kingdom
25,553
5,66,419


Other countries*
111,897
17,56,874


Total
137,450
23,23,293


Five months ended 31st August, 1932.




United Kingdom
12,673
2,38,653


Other countries*
90,409
13,58,692


Total
103,082
15,97,345


* Not including Aden.

ALL-INDIA MEDICAL COUNCIL BILL.

Mr. JOHN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the resolution passed at the All-India Medical Council, held at Lucknow, and sent to him, requesting the Government not to proceed with the All-India Medical Council Bill until such time as the Federal Legislature is duly constituted; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: The resolution referred to by the hon. Member has not reached me.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to inform the House of the names of members of the Indian Civil Service who are at present attached to the Indian States by requisition or otherwise; and the nature of the appointments held by such members, together with the salaries, if any, payable out of British-Indian revenues?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. But if the hon. Member desires the information I am prepared to make inquiry of the Government of India.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the great importance of this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and let us have this information?

PUBLIC DEBT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have provided or have under consideration the question of providing a sinking fund in connection with the public debt of British India for the purpose of affording support to the Indian securities market?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India make each year a large appropriation from revenue for the reduction or avoidance of debt. The amount is calculated with reference to the total amount of debt outstanding, and in the current year the budget provision is Rupees 682 lakhs (about £5,000,000). This provision is inclusive of the obligatory sinking fund charges in respect of certain obligations, and the balance may be applied either towards the avoidance of new borrowing or to the redemption of existing debt.

MEERUT CONSPIRACY CASE.

Mr. HICKS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India the precise effect of sentences of transportation and rigorous imprisonment, respectively, imposed upon those found guilty in the Meerut conspiracy case?

Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to be able to remove what appears to be a widespread misapprehension. There is no intention of sending these prisoners to the Andamans. The effect therefore of both kinds of sentences will be imprisonment under hard labour conditions.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the infliction of these sentences after the punishment meted out to the prisoners at the trial?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of recommending some measure of clemency, in view of the very prolonged proceedings at the trial?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand, unofficially, that an appeal is being lodged and, pending an appeal, I could not make any statement.

LABOUR COMMISSION.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the terms of the resolutions passed at the Bidi Labour Conference held at Kamptee and sent to him, requesting the Government of India to give effect to the recommendations of the Indian Labour Commission; and, if so, whether he proposes to make representations to the Government of India on the subject?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not received a copy of these resolutions. An account of the action taken on the Royal Commission's report is being placed in the Library.

OFFICIALS (STEAMSHIP PASSAGES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Italian Government forbids its nationals to sail in British ships where any Italian shipping line is available and that many British officials, whose fares are paid by the British and Indian Governments, are sailing to and from India in Italian ships; and whether, in view of the depressed state of British shipping, steps will be taken to remove this handicap?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen a press report of an incident of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, and understand that His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome has been asked to furnish a report as to the alleged action of the Italian Government in this matter. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question I would refer him to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington North (Mr. Bracken) on 12th December, 1932.

Sir W. DAVISON: Assuming the statement in the question to be correct, will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to representations being made to the Italian Government for some reciprocity in regard to this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a question which ought to be addressed either to the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. PRICE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India is prepared to consider the advisability of legislation to provide for the registration of trade marks in India?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India have considered this question on several occasions in the past and have held that legislation was inadvisable. They will no doubt be willing to consider any further representations that may be made to them by those concerned in India.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT.

Mr. PRICE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the law so as to secure power to detain goods involving infringements of designs within the purview of the Indian Patents and Designs Act?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that a resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India in the sense of the hon. Member's suggestion has been forwarded to the Government of India and will no doubt be considered by them.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE PRISONERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will now be prepared to release Mr. Gandhi and other prominent members of the Congress party in order that they may get together and decide the best means by which Congress can co-operate in the new constitution?

Sir S. HOARE: There can be no question of Mr. Gandhi and other prominent civil disobedience prisoners being released until the Government have convincing
reason to believe that their release would not be followed by a revival of civil disobedience.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that he will get the maximum results from all the efforts that are being made at the Round Table Conference and elsewhere, unless the official representatives of Indian thought are there to express their opinions?

Sir S. HOARE: A great many representatives of Indian thought are cooperating and will in the future be co-operating. I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer which I have just given.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there not a likelihood that the Indian people would be much more ready to receive and welcome any progress made, if their recognised official leaders were parties to the Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: This is a very complicated question, and I am afraid that a simple answer "Yes" or "No" to the hon. Gentleman would not carry us any further.

FEDERATION.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India what decision he has come to regarding the number of Indian States who must adhere to the proposed scheme of federation in order to make the scheme effective?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the relevant passage of my speech at the conclusion of the last Session of the Round Table Conference which is printed at page 139 of Command Paper 4238, and to which at present I can add nothing.

Sir A. KNOX: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state in this House on 27th June that all the Princes would have to join?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to my speech he will see that I never said anything of the kind.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not the case that in the first proof the word "all" was clearly apparent and that the word "all" was taken out in the second proof?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no memory of any such correction at all. I have always made it quite clear that federation must be effective federation.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right ton. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no whittling down to half as stated in his speech at the Round Table Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member should doubt the sincerity of the answer I have given.

BERAR.

Mr. McENTEE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the representations sent to him from the Berar All-Parties Committee with reference to the negotiations between H.E.H. the Nizam and His Majesty's Government on the subject of the constitutional future of Berar; and whether the people of Berar will be consulted before any action is taken in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have had before me the representations to which the hon. Member refers and can assure him that they have received full consideration in connection with the discussion now in progress in India relating to Berar. An assurance has already been given there that no steps in the matter of restoring to Hyderabad administration over Berar would be taken without giving to the people of Berar a full opportunity of expressing their wishes.

INDIAN WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, POONA.

Mr. PARKINSON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have considered the representations made to them for the recognition by them of the Indian Women's University at Poona; and what action they propose to take in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no knowledge of the representations referred to. The matter appears to be one for the authorities in India.

RAILWAY STRIKE, MADRAS.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action is to be taken by the Government of India in response to the application made to them by the All-India Railwaymen's
Union for the appointment of a conciliation board in connection with the Madras railway strike?

Sir S. HOARE: This strike was called off on 9th January, a committee of citizens of Madras having acted as conciliators. I have not heard of any desire on the part of either side since the strike ended for the appointment of a conciliation board.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If such a request should be made, will the right hon. Gentleman be sympathetic towards it?

Sir S. HOARE: I think it would be a matter primarily for the Government of India, but I will consult with the Government of India on the subject.

PRISONERS, RAJAHAMUNDRY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many prisoners in the gaol at Rajahamundry are on hunger strike, and for what period they have been on hunger strike?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information but will inquire.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inquire as to the reason, if there be any reason, for any prisoners hunger-striking at the moment?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, I will certainly do that.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM (PROHIBITION).

Mr. F. HALL: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for India on what grounds the exhibition of a film entitled Gandhi sees the King, produced by the British Screen News Company, has been prohibited in any province of India?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information as to the reason for the action taken, but no doubt the Government considered that the exhibition of this film tended to encourage civil disobedience activities.

CANNANORE GAOL (DISTURBANCE).

Mr. F. HALL: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House information as to the lathi charge made by the police on the prisoners in Cannanore Gaol on the 31st of December; whether any serious injuries resulted; and whether any of the prisoners have since gone on hunger strike?

Sir S. HOARE: I am aware that about the date in question disturbances were created in the Cannanore Gaol and that steps had to be taken to enforce discipline. I have no information as to any lathi charge by the police on the 31st December. I understand that one prisoner in the gaol went on hunger strike because the "C" Class prisoners were not allowed certain special privileges.

EDUCATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH (EXPENDITURE).

Major MILNER: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for India what were the taxable capacities, and the expenditure per capita on education and sanitation, respectively, in the several provinces of British India during each of the past five years?

Sir S. HOARE: The statistics regarding the expenditure under the heads "Education" and "Public Health" in the several provinces of India are given in the annual Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India, which have been presented to Parliament. The population figures of the provinces, according to the last Census, are given in the Abstract of Tables included in Command Paper 4194 of 1932. No official figures are available regarding taxable capacity, but figures showing the amount of taxation raised in each province will also be found in the annual accounts.

DEPRESSED CLASSES, MADRAS.

Major MILNER: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for India what was the nature of the representations received by the Government of India from bodies purporting to speak for the depressed classes before refusing its sanction to the introduction of Dr. Subbarayan's Temple Entry Bill into the Madras Legislative Council?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no knowledge of any such representations.

CHITTAGONG MUNICIPALITY (FINE).

Major MILNER: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India have refused to accede to the request that the fine of Rs.80,000 levied on the Chittagong municipality and some neighbouring villages be paid by instalments; and whether, in view of the hardship to all inhabitants of the district, he will ask the Government of India to reconsider the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: By the middle of January, Rs.53,000 of the fine had been collected. I see no reason for any intervention on my part.

BRITISH TEXTILES (BOYCOTT).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is now any considerable boycott of the sale of British textile goods in India?

Sir S. HOARE: My information is that in most parts of India the boycott of foreign goods is not now on a serious scale, and such picketing as there is has been ineffective.

MEERUT CONSPIRACY TRIAL.

Sir A. KNOX: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the conspiracy for participation in which certain individuals have been lately sentenced at Meerut was controlled and fnanced by the Communist International, an organisation under the control of the Soviet Government, he will ask for an explanation from Moscow?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): My hon. and gallant Friend has, I think, overlooked the fact that the case to which he refers was concerned with events which took place prior to March, 1929—that is to say, at a time when the propaganda agreement with the Soviet Government had not been signed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. BOOTHBY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming discussions at Washington will be confined to the question of debt payments?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As has already been announced, we have agreed that concurrently with the discussions of war debts between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, there should be a discussion of the world economic problems in which the two Governments are mutually interested. The object of the discussions will be to promote the revival of world trade and prosperity. While a settlement of war debts is an essential condition of such
revival, we have always recognised that there are a number of other factors, economic as well as financial, which will also have to be dealt with, and we shall be glad to exchange views with the United States Government on the whole field.

Major NATHAN: Before any delegation leaves these shores for Washington, will this House have an opportunity of discussing the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be far better if that delegation, whatever it is or whoever it is—a matter which has not been decided—that it would be far better if this House had a report from it before it begins to take up positions that cannot be changed after discussion in this House.

Major NATHAN: Will the position be left in such a way by the delegation that this House will not be bound till after it has considered the report of the delegation?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I think the House can gather from what I have said, the purpose of the delegation is to get into close personal touch with the United States Government, so that we can go on harmoniously, I do not say of necessity by definite agreement, but so that we can go on harmoniously facing the Very big problems that will have to be faced by both Governments before we can come to terms.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will this House and the country have a general idea of what are the proposals that His Majesty's Government intend to ask the American Government to discuss?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, the agenda that has been drawn up by the committee of experts in Geneva covers the field, and the subjects that will engage our attention are all included in that agenda.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but on the question, the very important question, of war debts, will the House and the country have any idea of the sort of proposals His Majesty's Government are going to put to the American Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, it has been said again and again that, so far
as War debts are concerned, we want an agreement with America which will enable us to pursue our European policy.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in view of the importance of emigration as between the two countries, whether that subject will come up for discussion?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's reply was to the effect that in any case no final engagement will be entered into in America before this House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult, especially in answer to a supplementary question, to commit myself in these matters. Great mistakes have been made in days gone by, very largely out of well-intentioned answers to supplementary questions, and if there is any point of substance to be pursued, I should much prefer to have it on. the Paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain definite statements in regard to Government policy, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is probably the most important piece of work that the Government will undertake during the next few months. Surely the House and the country are entitled to ask for a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman himself as to the broad lines of policy, in regard both to War debts and the other questions that have come under discussion—trade, tariffs, and so on.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This seems to be developing into a Debate.

Mr. LANSBURY: But, very respectfully, may the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to answer it, I will allow him to do so, but my impression is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is only repeating a question that has already been answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to review the question of Ministerial salaries; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question has not been considered.

Mr. BROWN: After further consultation with the Secretary of State for the Dominions, will the right hon. Gentleman at once take steps, judging by results, to dispense with the services of Ministers who are not worth their salaries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my right hon. Friend's statement made no reflection on Ministers at all.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Was not the right hon. Gentleman referring to his colleagues in the late Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. DONNER: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the recent fighting at Shanhaikwan and the situation as it is at present?

Sir J. SIMON: As the result of a clash between Chinese and Japanese troops at Shanhaikwan on the 1st January, the city was occupied by Japanese troops on the following day, the Chinese troops retreating in the direction of Chinwangtao. On the 10th January, Japanese troops occupied Chiumenko, a village on the Great Wall some seven miles north of Shanhaikwan. Since that date there has apparently been no alteration in the relative position of the Chinese and Japanese troops although the former are said to be strengthening their defences in the neighbourhood of the Peking-Mukden railway. The situation at present is reported to be calm and it is understood that part of the Japanese troops have been withdrawn.

Sir W. DAVISON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House over what parts of China the Chinese Government exercises effective control; and whether the Chinese Government takes adequate measures to guarantee the safety of life and property within such areas?

Sir J. SIMON: To give an accurate answer to my hon. Friend's question presents some difficulty, but generally speaking it may be said that the Central Government exercises more direct, and
consequently more effective control over the provinces nearer to the capital than over the more distant provinces. All the provinces except the Manchurian provinces, however, acknowledge the authority of the Central Government, though a separate South-West Political Council exists at Canton. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that apart from those regions of China, such as the borders of Kiangsi, Fukien, and Northern Szechuan, which are held by the Communist organisations, the authorities concerned are doing their best to preserve law and order, and incidentally to protect British, lives and property.

Sir W. DAVISON: Incidentally, I suppose that British lives and property run considerable risks in those areas?

Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand from the last part of the answer that in the Communist areas referred to the Central Government exercise little or no control of any sort?

Sir J. SIMON: I believe it is certainly the case that they exercise less than elsewhere.

Earl WINTERTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman state what is the area of those provinces? Is it not a very considerable part of the whole area of China?

Sir J. SIMON: No, I should not like to state that, but, after all, I feel that if my Noble Friend will consult the atlas in the Library, he will find what he wants to know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that more than a year has elapsed since negotiations were opened with the Brazilian authorities responsible for the default on the State of Rio de Janeiro loans held by British investors; is he aware that they have received no income and no offer of payment since the default; and what steps he is taking to assist British investors, as the London representatives of the bondholders have failed to obtain redress from the Rio de Janeiro authorities?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that the position is as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. I understand, however, that the representative of the official fiscal agents for the British investors in these loans is still in Rio de Janeiro, where he is making every effort on behalf of the British interests involved. He is in constant communication with the agents in London, who are in turn keeping the Foreign Office informed. I do not consider any further action desirable at this time.

Mr. LEWIS: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will undertake that no trade agreement will be signed with the Latvian trade delegation until a satisfactory settlement has been made with the bondholders of the city of Riga 4½ per cent. loan?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give any undertaking in such a case; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter of the loan has not been lost sight of.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISA FEES (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of visitors from America to this country in 1932, and what their average expenditure was per head; and whether, with a view to encouraging tourist traffic from the United States of America to this country, he will take steps to equalise the visa charge of 10 dollars for Great Britain to that charged by France of two dollars?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) on Thursday last.

Sir B. PETO: Arising from that reply, in which the right hon. Gentleman stated that 80,000 American tourists came to this country, does he not think that it is sometimes worth using a sprat to catch a whale?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (WAR FILM).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the character of the naval war-film "Morenrot" now being exhibited throughout Germany, in which men of the Royal
Navy are being depicted as being guilty of unchivalrous and treacherous conduct; and whether, in view of the effect which the exhibiting of such a film is likely to have on Anglo-German relations, he proposes to make any representations to the German Government on this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I am advised that the film in question does not convey any suggestion of unchivalrous or treacherous conduct on the part of men of the Royal Navy, and I do not feel that it need have any harmful effect on Anglo-German relations. The answer to the second part of the question, therefore, is in the negative.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is it not a fact that Herr Hitler himself deprecated the showing of this film as being of a definitely undesirable nature?

Sir J. SIMON: That is a rather different question. I was asked if I would make representations on particular grounds. My information is that the action depicted is between a British Q ship and a German U boat; it portrays in a generally accurate manner an incident of warfare at sea during the War, and conveys no suggestion of treachery or unchivalrous conduct on the part of the British. The film shows that the Q ship hoisted the White Ensign before it opened fire.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Berlin correspondent of the "Times" has expressed the definite opinion that this film does gravely reflect upon the honour of the British Navy?

Sir J. SIMON: I can only say that the authority I have cited is an even higher authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have yet come to a decision as to whether they will accept the invitation of the Netherlands Government to a conference to reconsider the North Sea Fisheries Convention, 1881?

Sir J. SIMON: I regret to state that His Majesty's Government have not yet been able to come to a decision in regard to this matter. Certain complicated questions are involved.

Sir M. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress is being made and whether a statement is likely to be made soon?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that I can make any statement at present on the general matter. It has to be considered by more Departments than one.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the waste of fish at the fishing ports; and whether he will consider the possibility of distributing large quantities of this fish for food at a cheap rate through welfare committees and other similar agencies?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am aware that in the summer months, when supplies of fish are often in excess of demand, sound fish is not uncommonly disposed of for other purposes than human consumption. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that a scheme on the lines indicated is being organised by fish traders in Hull, and I hope it will be successful, and the example followed elsewhere.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Cannot the Ministry of Agriculture render some assistance to this voluntary effort by distributing surplus fish during the summer months to persons who are unemployed?

Major ELLIOT: I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which my hon. Friend may make.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in 1926 the experiment was tried of sending surplus fish to miners' families with considerable success. Of course, His Majesty's inspectors see that it is good fresh fish. Will not the Minister take energetic steps to press the experiment now and extend it widely?

Major ELLIOT: The Ministry of Agriculture have no powers to govern distribution.

Mr. LAWSON: If the unemployed succeed in getting fish as a result of this scheme, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the public assistance committees do not penalise them because of it?

Sir M. WOOD: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now con-
sidered the report of the committee which recently investigated the condition of the fishing industry; and whether the Government propose to adopt any of the recomimendations?

Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In general, the Government views the recommendations of the committee favourably. As regards matters requiring legislation, it may be difficult to find time in the near future for the legislation involved, which may have to give place to matters of greater urgency, but the terms of draft Bills on various matters are under consideration. Inquiries have also been begun, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee, regarding the distribution of fish. So far as concerns the recommendation of the committee that the question of imposing restrictions on the imports of white fish should be considered, I would remind my hon. Friend that Customs duties have since been imposed on imported fish.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. CHORLTON: 62.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the progress made in arriving at means to overcome frozen remittances now proving such a handicap to our foreign trade?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The extent of the difficulties created by exchange restrictions and the best means of alleviating them are being examined in consultation with a joint committee of banking, commercial and industrial representatives. In some countries commercial balances, formerly frozen, can now be used on certain conditions for financing exports, in some others negotiations and inquiries are in progress and assistance continues to be rendered in numerous individual cases through His Majesty's representatives abroad

Mr. CHORLTON: When is the Committee likely to report?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Committee has been sub-divided to examine various districts, and all the reports will not come in at once, but I can assure the hon. Member that the investigations are being 'actively pressed on.

CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any undertaking on the part of the Canadian Government that the Canadian. Tariff Board will be so constituted that it cannot be subjected to political influences?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. Member to the Canadian Tariff Board Act, 1931, from which he will see that the Tariff Board is constituted as a judicial body and as a court of record.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any undertaking by the Canadian Government that the recommendations of the Tariff Board will be implement by legislation?

Mr. THOMAS: It is provided by Article 13 of the Canadian Agreement that on the request of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, His Majesty's Government in Canada will cause a review to be made by the Tariff Board of the duties charged on any commodities specified in such request, and that such report shall be laid before the Canadian Parliament, and that Parliament shall be invited to vary wherever necessary the tariff on such commodities of United Kingdom origin as to give effect to the principles laid down in Article 11. Article 14 of the Agreement further provides that no existing duty shall be increased on United Kingdom goods except after an inquiry and the receipt of a report from the Tariff Board, and in accordance with the facts as found by that body.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the anticipated beneficial results of the Anglo-Canadian treaty have been negatived by administrative action, and that apparently there is no redress?

Mr. THOMAS: If any specific case is brought to my notice I will certainly take it up, but it is only fair to say that, owing to difficulties well understood, the Tariff Board was only formed last week, and it is hardly fair to prejudge the issue when they have not had an opportunity of reviewing any case?

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the amount of uncollected tithes in each of the last three years?

Major ELLIOT: I have no jurisdiction as regards the collection of tithe rent-charge, and I am accordingly not in a position to supply the information which my hon. Friend requires.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir G. FOX: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet been able to trace the cause of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and what has been the expenditure incurred to date in connection with compensation arising through this outbreak?

Major ELLIOT: Since the 8th January, 33 outbreaks have been confirmed, and of these 27 are directly or indirectly attributable to infection contracted at loading banks at Reading, on the 5th and 6th January. I regret, however, that it has not been possible to discover the original cause of these or of the remaining six outbreaks. The compensation payable amounts to £34,895.

Sir C. CAYZER: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the possibility that the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease may be traceable to the importation of cheap foreign bacon, the remnants of which are fed to homegrown pigs, this suggestion has been fully investigated; and, in the event of its justification, whether the Government is prepared to take steps to stop such importation, and so save the expenditure at present consequent upon outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, and also assist still further the home production of bacon?

Major ELLIOT: A certain risk attaches to the feeding of remnants of bacon to pigs; but the Ministry in its investigations has found no reason to suppose that recent outbreaks have been due particularly to this cause. Food containing remnants of bacon, as of other meat, must under an Order of 1928 be boiled for an hour before being fed to pigs.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is it not a fact that foot-and-mouth disease was found in foreign pork some years ago, and does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it worth while investigating this matter further?

Major ELLIOT: If my hon. Friend has any suggestions which he wishes to bring forward, I shall be glad to have them further investigated.

MEAT IMPORTS.

Sir G. FOX: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now state what have been the results of the discussions that took place during the past week with the representatives of bacon importing countries with regard to the continuance of restriction upon such imports?

Major ELLIOT: The discussions referred to are still in progress and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. LAMBERT: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to limit to a larger degree meat imports from foreign countries and Dominions with currencies depreciated in relation to sterling?

Major ELLIOT: I appreciate the point of my right hon. Friend's question, but I would remind him that, apart from the Ottawa Agreements Act, there is no statutory power to impose any limitation on the quantities of meat imported from foreign countries. The Agreements made at Ottawa also govern the importation of meat from Dominion sources.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the depreciated currencies of Denmark, Australia and New Zealand represent something like 1½d. Per lb on meat, and that that is unfair competition with the British farmer?

Major ELLIOT: I repeat that I have no power to impose any limitation on the quantities of meat imported.

Earl WINTERTON: Is there anything in the arrangement come to at Ottawa to prevent my right hon. and gallant Friend entering into friendly negotiations with the Governments concerned and to point out to them the effect of the
matters referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on British farmers?

Major ELLIOT: There is nothing to prevent that, and we are taking depreciated exchanges into account in all the discussions that we are having.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to ask the House to give him such powers in future?

Major ELLIOT: I think that that is a hypothetical question.

IRISH CATTLE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what subsidy is granted by the Irish Free State Government on cattle, sheep, and pigs exported to this country; and whether the duties imposed are fully countervailing?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the Irish Free State Government grant the following bounties on live animals exported to this country: —Pigs 12½ per cent. ad valorem; cattle 12½ per cent. ad valorem (10 per cent. in the case of animals exported by land to Northern Ireland); sheep nil. The duty in each case on importation into this country is 40 per cent. ad valorem.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTING FACILITIES (RURAL AREAS).

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken in rural areas to increase letter-postal facilities by placing post-boxes on motor-omnibuses which pass through outlying towns and villages at a later hour than the last outward post?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is a standing instruction that later posting facilities in the manner described are to be provided in every case in which substantial advantage can be obtained and satisfactory arrangements can be made with the Municipal Authority or Company owning the omnibuses.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the North of England there are villages within a few miles of large postal towns from
which there is only one outward post, and that in the morning, in spite of the fact that omnibuses are running continuously from those villages?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars, and I will investigate them.

STAMP SAVINGS BOOKS.

Mr. LEWIS: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General what response has been made by the small investor to the institution of stamp savings books in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank?

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to say the response has been very satisfactory and the scheme has evidently appealed to the small saver. Over a quarter of a million books have already been issued since the institution of the scheme at the New Year.

DEVELOPMENT WORK.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 76.
asked the Post master-General whether he is now in a position to state what sum of money will be available to his Department for development work during the current year?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not sure to what my hon. Friend refers, but if he means the capital expenditure for the current year, the present estimate is £8,100,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WARREN HASTINGS (INSCRIPTION, WESTMINSTER HALL).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 77.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he has any thing further to report in regard to amending the inscription on the floor of Westminster Hall regarding the trial of Warren Hastings?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Mrs. Frewen Lord, through the Royal Empire Society, has offered to defray the cost of a new plate in memory of her husband, who was greatly interested in vindicating the honour of Warren Hastings. Various eminent authorities have been consulted and, as a result, it is suggested that the new inscription should run as follows:
On this spot Warren Hastings stood his trial, 1788–1795. He was acquitted on all the charges.
In the absence of any serious expression of dissent on the part of Members of either House of Parliament, I now propose to approve of the new inscription.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (EMPIRE TIMBER).

Mr. NORTH: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will issue instructions that the hardwood used in building contracts entered into by his Department shall be of Empire origin?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: For some years it has been the standard practice on building contracts entered into by my Department to specify solely hardwoods of Empire origin, and tenderers are also given the option of submitting for consideration alternative Empire woods which they may think suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD.

Mr. THORNE: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total population of Trinidad at the last census, according to sex and age; the total number of persons on the electoral roll according to sex; and the franchise qualifications of electors and the qualifications of candidates for election to the legislative council?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following in the answer:

The total population at the 1931 Census was 411,452, of which 205,859 were males and 205,593 were females. Particulars of the age distribution are not yet available. The number of registered electors at the end of December, 1931, was 20,020. The register was due for revision in 1932, but the revised figures have not yet been received in the Colonial Office. Nor are particulars of the sex distribution of registered electors available.

The franchise qualifications of electors are:

They must be British subjects by birth or naturalisation and not under legal incapacity; if males, they must be 21, and if females, 30 years of age; they
must understand spoken English and must have lived in the Colony for two years prior to registration or be domiciled and resident in the Colony on the date thereof.

Property qualifications:

Occupation as owner for one year of property of £12 10s. rateable value in a borough or £10 elsewhere; or occupation as tenant paying £12 10s. per annum rent in a borough or £10 per annum elsewhere; or payment as lodger for one year of £12 10s. rent or £62 10s. rent and board combined; or occupation as owner or tenant under agreement of property paying at least 10s. per annum land tax; or annual salary of £62 10s. Persons adjudged by a Court to be of unsound mind, or who have received poor relief within six months before date of registration are disqualified.

The qualifications of candidates for election to the Legislative Council are:

They must be of the male sex and able to read and write English and must be registered as electors; they must own real estate £2,500 in value or derive £200 per annum therefrom, or must have an income of over £400 from any source. They must have resided in an electoral district for one year or own therein real estate £5,000 in value or giving an income of £400 per annum. Ministers of religion and paid officers of the Crown or the Government are disqualified.

Mr. PARKINSON: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if attendance at school is compulsory in the island of Trinidad; and if not, what steps he proposes to take to bring this matter before the legislature?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Governor of Trinidad has power under existing legislation to proclaim any area to be a compulsory school attendance area. This power has not yet been exercised, but the question will no doubt receive further consideration in connection with the recent visit to Trinidad of the West Indian Education Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

Mr. THORNE: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the instructions issued by the Department of Education in Kenya, with a view to
the exercise of pressure in the matter of the appointment, retention or promotion of persons who are believed to be associated with organisations having political objects?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Instructions were issued by the Governor of Kenya in 1931 in connection with elections to the Legislative Council and other public bodies, pointing out that it was inadvisable for officers or teachers in the Education Department to indicate publicly their support of political persons, parties or propaganda. These instructions were not issued with a view to exercising any pressure in the matter of the appointment, retention or promotion of personnel. Later, in June, 1931, similar instructions were issued to the whole of the Kenya Civil Service.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I take it that it does not penalise a native who belongs to the Kikuyu association or Archdeacon Owen's association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think this question has anything to do with natives belonging to associations. It is a question about something which was instituted before my time.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to make certain that it does not damnify a native in the teaching profession in Kenya if he should belong to either of these associations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking a specific question relating to something before my time, and I should like to see it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (CONCILIATION COMMITTEE).

Mr. RANKIN: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has reached any decision with regard to the chairmanship of the new cotton industry conciliation committee; and, if so, whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The employers' and workers' organisations concerned agreed that there should be one chairman for the two conciliation committees provided for in the agreements recently concluded in the spinning and manufacturing sections of the industry. They asked my right
hon. Friend to nominate a chairman and he has nominated Mr. Charles Doughty, K.C., who has been good enough to agree to undertake this important work. My right hon. Friend has advised the organisations accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. LAWSON: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour if the commissioners who are administering transitional payments in Durham will report to him on their work; whether such report will be laid upon the Table; and whether opportunity will be given to discuss it in the House?

Mr. HUDSON: The persons appointed under Article 7 of the Order-in-Council relating to transitional payments to act in the stead of a county council or county borough council have the same duties imposed on them as other authorities under the Order. These duties do not include the submission of a report upon their work, and my right hon. Friend has no power under the Order to require them to submit such a report. The remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Mr. LAWSON: Have not the elected representatives of the county council and county boroughs been subject to close supervision and regular Ministerial control in these cases, and are we to understand that there is to be no supervision or control now, as there is abundant evidence that there is not? Ought we not to have quarterly reports in order that the House can discuss the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: The commissioners will be under no more and no less control than their predecessors.

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman well aware that there is absolutely no control and no supervision as long as they cut down the unemployed transitional payments?

Mr. C. BROWN: May I ask whether, when the commissioners are making their decisions, inspectors of the Ministry of Health are present?

Mr. HUDSON: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Minister will not take this matter into really serious consideration, as he must be well aware that these commissioners are taking advantage of the fact that the Government have repeatedly issued—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. LAWSON: I do not mind Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware, after his repeated statements and the Minister's statements in this House that they have no control over these Commissioners, that they are simply inciting these Commissioners to do their fell work.

Mr. HUDSON: I could not accept that statement of the position.

Mr. LAWSON: The way they are carrying on is a positive disgrace.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In view of the fact that these Commissioners are paid from public funds, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to have a report on their work?

Mr. BATEY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the Minister of Labour stated in this House that the Commissioners would issue a report up to 17th December, and is it not clear from that that they do supply reports, and cannot we have them?

Mr. MARTIN: Would it not be of great benefit if some information were given, in order that we might be able to rebut inflamatory speeches made by some hon. Members?

Mr. LAWSON: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that disabled ex-soldiers who come under the administration of transitional payments in Durham are losing more than half their disability pension in the net award; and whether, in view of the terms of the recent Act, he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. HUDSON: My information is that the rule regarding disability pensions laid down in the recent Act is being duly applied by the Commissioners. If, however, any applicant considers that his needs have not been properly taken into account, his right course is to approach the Commissioners who are always ready to consider such representations.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Act is being broken, and that there is no control of these people by the Minister's Department? They can even flaunt an Act of Parliament.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How can the hon. Gentleman justify his previous answer that there is no control over the Commissioners when he now states that his information is that certain things are or are not being done?

Mr. BATEY: If I supply the Parliamentary Secretary with a case in which a man receiving light disability compensation has had his allowance reduced by more than 50 per cent., will he take action?

Mr. HUDSON: I should like to see the case.

Mr. BATEY: I will supply you with it.

Mr. BATEY: 88.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the total cost of the commissioner and his staff since the first commissioner was appointed to Rotherham; the number of cases reduced; the number refused; and the total amount of money saved?

Mr. HUDSON: The estimated total cost of administration under the commissioner in Rotherham up to the 7th January, 1933, was approximately £1,250 apart from non-recurrent charges amounting to approximately £200. From the 17th October to the 7th January out of a total of 5,793 determinations issued, 4,253 were at the full benefit rate, 1,114 were at less than the benefit rate and in 426 cases the applicants were not considered to be in need of relief by means of transitional payments. The review of determinations given by the public assistance committee could not, of course, be completed until some weeks after the appointment of the commissioner, but it is estimated that the expenditure on transitional payments from 13th October, 1932, to 7th January, 1933, was about £2,500 less than if all the determinations current during this period had been given by the public assistance committee in accordance with their practice prior to October, 1932.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the salaries and the clerical assistance are paid for out of the local rates or the public Exchequer?

Mr. HUDSON: Out of the public Exchequer.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that for every pound paid to the unemployed workers at least 10s. should be paid to the commissioners?

Mr. HUDSON: I think hon. Members are under a misapprehension as regards the reason for the appointment of the commissioner. The commissioner was appointed because a local authority was unable or unwilling to carry out the law, and the question of saving does not arise. The commissioner would have been appointed whether there was a saving or an increase in expenditure, because the law was not being carried out.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer compared with the answers which he gave last week simply means that the administration in Durham is costing nearly £6,000 a week whereas it cost nothing before the commissioner went in?

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot accept that statement. At any rate, we are dealing, not with Durham, but with Rotherham.

GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.

Mr. TOUCHE: 89.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the latest information as to the number of unemployed persons in Germany and the United States of America, together with the corresponding figures for a year previous?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total number of persons registered as unemployed at the public Employment Exchanges in Germany at 15th January, 1933, was 5,966,242; the corresponding figure for the same date in the previous year was 5,966,215. The comparability of these figures is, however, affected by legislative and administrative changes, introduced in June, 1932, in the conditions governing the payment of unemployment benefit. There are no official statistics of unemployment in the United States. The general index of employment in manufacturing industries, compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, was 58.3 in December, 1932, the latest date for which informa-
tion is available, and 66.7 in December, 1931, the average index of employment for the year 1926 being taken as equal to 100. In December, 1932, 34 per cent. of the membership of trade unions affiliated to the American Federation of Labor were unemployed, as compared with 30 per cent. in December, 1931. The Federation has estimated that there were over 11 million persons unemployed in December, 1932, as compared with about 10,300,000 in January, 1932, the earliest date for which a comparable estimate is available.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE.

Mr. BATEY: 90.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state on what grounds it is intended to give £15,000 instead of £10,000 to the National Council of Social Service; and can he give the names of the officers and committee of the National Council of Social Service?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply to this question is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Supplementary Estimate adopted in December provided for an initial grant of £10,000 for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons. It is proposed to make to the National Council of Social Service a grant of £7,500 for administrative purposes. It is understood that no part of this sum will be spent by the council on strengthening its own organisation and that it will be used to assist the organisation of other national bodies whom they propose to ask to undertake definite work on their behalf, and to strengthen the organisation of certain regional social service bodies. It is also proposed to make provision to enable the council to provide assistance in promoting schemes of occupation for unemployed persons either directly or through the organisation of other national and regional social bodies whom they may invite to act on their behalf. A sum of approximately £15,000 will be required for this purpose. Each Government grant to the council is made on the understanding that a corresponding amount is raised from other sources. The Estimates already passed by the House will be sufficient to meet any payments to be made up to the 31st March. Provision for the ensuing period will be included in the
Estimates for the next financial year. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the names of the officers and members of the Unemployment Committee of the National Council of Social Service as at present constituted.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (AIR FORCES).

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 91.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the importance of civil and military aviation to the British Empire, and of his statement of 10th November last that the investigation of the international control of civil aviation would last a long time, he will give an assurance that the examination by the principal air Powers of the practicability of the abolition, of air forces and bombing and of the internationalisation of civil aviation will not be undertaken at Geneva without prolonged inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question means that he is anxious for an assurance that the examination of these important and intricate questions will be thorough—not that the examination will be postponed. So understood, I have no hesitation in giving this assurance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he intends to go with business, if the Motion on the Paper for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried? May I also ask if the Prime Minister is able to make a more definite statement about the business for Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I announced last Thursday, the Vote of Censure will be taken on Thursday, provided that the proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill are concluded to-morrow. The Government hope that it will be possible to complete the Report stage of that Bill to-night, and to devote to-morrow's sitting to the Third Reading Debate. That will clear the way for Thursday. The Motion on the Paper for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule will not be moved. If the Report stage of the London Passenger Transport Bill is concluded to-day before Eleven o'Clock, the Third Reading will not be moved until
to-morrow, and any time available before Eleven o'clock to-night will be devoted to the Second Reading of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill. In any event, the Report stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) [Money], which is exempted business, will be taken to-night.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932).

Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1933 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of service of passenger vessels on River Thames.)

The powers of the London County Council under the Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904, with respect to the provision of a service of passenger vessels on the River Thames shall be transferred to the Board, and the Board, in execution of their general duty under Section three, shall consider and take such measures as they may think fit to utilise the River Thames for the purposes of passenger transport, whether with steamboats, motor-boats, or other vessels.

Provided that if the Board shall not think fit to provide a service themselves under this Section they may from time to time enter into arrangements with private persons willing to provide such a service or services under conditions to be approved by the Board.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in whose name this new Clause stands, is unfortunately unable to be present, it falls to me to move the Second Reading of it. It is rather curious that this proposal, which affects, to so large a degree, the passenger transport of London, falls to be moved and seconded by two hon. Members who do not represent any London constituencies at all. Last week we had a Debate on the amenities of London in which not a single London Member found time to speak. Therefore, I think we, who are considered to be somewhat rustic, may claim that we have the real interests of the transport of this great city at heart.
The object of the Clause, as probably hon. Members realise, is not the handiwork of either the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton nor of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), but it is the handiwork of one of the greatest humorists of our time, who spends his spare moments in rooting out public scandals with great effect; in fact the Clause might be described as a Haddock Clause. It was devised by a
certain Mr. Haddock of whom Mr. Herbert is always telling us, who has conceived the idea that London wastes its river from the point of view of transport. I know perfectly well that the history of river transport in London is no new one. I also know that something has happened within the last 20 years to make it go entirely to sleep.
London must be the only capital city in the world which has a great river which it does not use in any sense for ordinary purposes. It is not a sufficient reply to say that there are tides, or that it is sometimes cold or sometimes foggy in London, because nature is no more kind to many other cities in that respect. One has only to think of great cities like New York, where a tremendous amount of traffic has to be carried by ferry, or San Francisco, where the railway station is reached from the main part of the city entirely by ferry, to realise that in London there is ample opportunity for making better use of the Thames. Anyone taking a map of London who had never seen it before, seeing the great river going right through the middle, and using, not only a little imagination, but just a few measurements, would realise that there is great scope for use of the waterway. It is no sufficient answer to say, as probably some hon. Members might say, that 20 years ago the experiment was tried by the county council and failed, because the problem of to-day is not the problem of 20 years ago. Let the House bear in mind the statistics. Within the last 20 years the motor traffic of this country has more than doubled, and there are 1,000,000 more motor cars on the roads to-day than there were in 1922. That is the problem with which this authority will have to deal when it is set up.
All that the Clause seeks to do is to provide that the county council's existing powers should be transferred to the board, that the board should consider and take such measures as they think fit to utilise the river, and that, if they do not think fit for some reason or other themselves to provide a service, they may from time to time enter into arrangements with private persons who might be willing to provide such a service or services under such conditions as they approve. It seems to me to be a perfectly innocuous system to suggest, and I
shall be surprised if anyone objects in the sense of saying that by these proposals we should be extending the powers of the Traffic Board. We only want to make quite sure that it is possible for someone, if they wish to do so, to provide river transport services under the board. The difficulty to-day seems to me to be that everyone is always trying to say, "It is not my business; someone else had better do it," and nothing gets done. Therefore, we suggest that we should definitely put into the hands of the board all the powers that exist to-day in the London County Council, if they still exist, and let the board deal with the matter. If and when the board is set up, they will be the only people who can have a real conspectus of the traffic problem of London, and, whatever we may say about the value of the London Passenger Transport Bill, we must recognise that the board will be the one authority which will have the power to take a big view of the whole problem. That is why I suggest that the board should be given these powers. If they do not want to exercise them, they can delegate them.
I see that there is another Amendment on the Paper, put down by certain Liberal Members, to Clause 19, and, incidentally, if this Clause be adopted, that Amendment will have to come out. It is to a slightly different effect, in that it says that nothing should prevent the London County Council from exercising such powers if they wish to do so. There has been nothing in the world to prevent them from doing so, as far as I know, for the last 20 years, but the thing is that they have not done it, and, because they have not done it, I want to see such powers as there are transferred to the new board, in order that they may consider the matter and act as they think right.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
I have been so impressed by the eloquence of my hon. and gallant Friend that I feel obliged to support this proposed new Clause. I do so with great pleasure, because I think that, if the London County Council had anything to do with river transport, they probably would not do it very well. I have grave doubts as to many of the dealings of this
board, but the last part of the Clause contains a provision enabling them to devolve some of their passenger traffic duties, even if only in regard to the river, and I think that that is a good precedent, which might very well be inserted in the Bill. I feel sure that the Government, if they use that discretion and knowledge which they almost always—except in connection with this Bill—do use, are bound to accept this very excellent Clause.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: As a London Member, I support this Clause, which has been moved by a rural Member and seconded by a nautical Member. I think that anyone who has read Mr. Herbert's eloquent book, "No Boats on the River," will agree that it is high time that some body should take in hand the proper utilisation of the River Thames. I remember very well the previous attempt to put steamers on the river, and I utilised those steamers with great pleasure on many occasions some five and twenty years ago. Unfortunately, however, as everyone knows, the whole idea of steamers on the river was taken up as a political stunt by the London Municipal Society—which is, of course, an anti municipal body—a great outcry was raised, the whole matter was shelved, and the steamers were laid up. Since that time, efforts have been made by private individuals to get leave to run motor boat services, but the London County Council turned the proposal down.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is quite right in saying that a big authority is needed to deal with these river services, and I think that, if this Clause be agreed to, other Clauses should be added to give to the authority adequate powers so that any running of steamers shall not be hampered by the rival claims of other authorities, such as the Port of London Authority and so forth. While these powers are in the hands of the London County Council, objections are likely to be raised by other riparian councils, and an authority is needed with powers extending, as regards river transport, not only right down the river towards the sea, but a good way up as well. It certainly ought to go right up to the boundary of the London Transport area. I hope, therefore, that the
Government will accept the Clause. The entire absence of passenger transport on the River Thames is a disgrace to the civic authorities of this country. Anyone who goes to Paris or to any other country is amazed at what they can do and what we cannot do. Let us remember that in the days of Samuel Pepys there were 40,000 watermen plying for hire on the river. That was mainly because the river was a much better means of transport than the roads at that time. Road transport to-day is getting so congested that it is obvious that the river would afford very great relief. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting this proposal.

4.0 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: Perhaps I shall be able to assist the House if I say at once that I have every reason to believe that the London County Council will be quite willing to accept this proposed new Clause. We realise that if the Board is going to take over the whole passenger land traffic within the area, it is certainly not convenient that the water transport should be left, possibly, in the hands of another authority. There is another reason. It is not fair to those interests who are very desirous of running a service on the river—and I am sure all would be delighted to see an efficient service running—not to know where they stand. Rather than first have to negotiate with the county council and then not to know if the Board is going to take over these powers, it is much better to pass them over to the Board at once, and that they should take the whole powers under the Steamboats Act, 1904. I was anxious to explain the attitude of the London County Council with regard to the matter.

4.2 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): In considering this Clause we have taken steps to ascertain whether the London County Council is prepared to agree to the powers of the Thames River Steamboats Act, 1904, being transferred to the Board. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) say what he did, and if the London County Council formally agreed to this proposal, we should be sympathetic and would be prepared to
propose an Amendment in the Second House. Following the words of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), I feel bound to make reference to Mr. A. P. Herbert. I am in a little difficulty in making up my mind as to how much of the enthusiasm for this service of steamboats on the River Trames is the result of a genuine demand on the part of travellers, or how much is due to the charm, inspiration and enthusiasm of that famous publicist. A predecessor of mine in the Harwich Division, Samuel Pepys, wrote in his diary:
But Lord! What a sad time it is to see no boats on the River; and grass grows all up and down Whitehall …
There are still some pessimists who feel that if a scheme were publicly financed, and proved unsuccessful, there might still be some connection between boats on the river and grass in Whitehall; but, as I have mentioned, in the event of the London County Council agreeing to this proposal, we should be prepared to put down an Amendment in the Second House.

4.4 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I am sorry we did not get a more definite lead from the Minister.

Mr. PYBUS: May I say that I accepted the Clause.

Sir P. HARRIS: I congratulate the Minister on his wise step. I am sure he will earn the undying gratitude of London. I put down an Amendment to Clause 19, but, on the whole, I think this proposed new Clause is more likely to achieve the purpose than merely amending a Clause. I hope that another place will not weaken the Clause. The real trouble is that we may have in the new board a rather timid authority. Somehow or other, whenever the River Thames has been in question, even the London County Council are timid. For a quarter of a century some of us have been endeavouring to sway the authorities of London to utilise this great broad highway. I agree that there is a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of speculation, but, after all, life is an adventure, and this country has been renowned for its enterprise on the high sea, and it is not at all unreasonable that London should prove its greatness by using this great, broad highway, the river. I entirely agree that this board is the
right authority, because if this service is really to be financially successful, it should be co-ordinated with other traffic facilities—trams, tubes, omnibuses and trains, because then the various piers, the various approaches to the river can be met by these other agencies.
All that I want to say to the Minister is, be of good courage; do not be weak in this matter; if there is to be an amendment in another place, see that it is strengthened, see that it is likely to be so framed and so worded that the new authority shall have to face the responsibility, and not run away from it. If the new authority is not prepared to take the responsibility, all hope of using the river for traffic facilities in the future will be taken away. Therefore, I say to the Minister, in accepting this Clause, I hope he accepts it not only in the words but in the spirit, and understands that the House is behind him in making it an operative Clause.

4.7 p.m.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I have a dual interest in wishing to say a few words in regard to this Clause. I happen to be a relative of Pepys, although not in the direct line, obviously, because he left no children; but I am a collateral relative. I can speak also in another capacity, because over 25 years ago I was a member of the very Highways Committee whose task it was to take the steamboats off the Thames after we had given them a fairly long trial. I am not going into the controversy of the county council 25 years ago, but we found that on the average every passenger who went on one of the steamers paid 2d. and the ratepayers paid 4d., in the way of subsidy, in order that passengers might travel, and when the receipts were only one-third of the expenditure we thought the service was not worth continuing. I am very glad that the Minister is accepting this Clause, although I do not think it possible to make the thing pay from the point of view of municipal enterprise. But if, owing to the fact that we now have fast motor boats instead of the paddle steamers of those days, or for any reason of that sort, a private service can be found to run these steamers, I am only too glad that they should do so, but I do hope that the authority to be given these powers will consider the matter very carefully before saddling the rates of
London with the very heavy expense we had 25 years ago.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I wish the Minister would make a little more clear what the position is. In his speech he said that the matter would be dealt with in the institution which he described as "the Second House." I suppose he meant when this Bill was in Committee in another place. Then later, in answer to a question, he said that he was accepting the new Clause. I hope if the right hon. and learned Attorney-General speaks he will tell us definitely what is the purpose of the Government—whether they accept this new Clause, or they themselves are to be responsible in another place for moving in Committee a new Clause, I hope, personally, that an Amendment or new Clause in this form will be passed, so as to remove from the London County Council in future any temptation to repeat the folly of the past. I also hope that the board which takes over these powers will not commit the folly of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and his colleagues 25 years ago, because, like other members of his body, they never seem to learn anything. It is manifestly impossible to ran a commercial service on the waterway in the existing circumstances, and the only reason I rose was because I want to express my view against any encouragement being given to this new board to run an unsuccessful undertaking. They are going to take over such a lot of unsuccessful undertakings, that they do not want to burden themselves with any more responsibility.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of London Passenger Transport Board.)

4.11 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "by," to insert the words "the Minister, after consultation with."
There are three Amendments in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends dealing with the first part of Clause 1, and they all stand or fall together. The House is aware that we have always been opposed to the idea of
Appointing Trustees as being a clumsy, and, we believe, unworkable method of getting a satisfactory appointment of the officers for the new London Transport Board, but we are not attempting by this Amendment to cut out the Appointing Trustees. We appreciate that the House, in the Committee stage, voted in favour of that, and against our Amendment to leave the appointment in the hands of the Minister, which we believe to be the right method, but we are moving this Amendment because already the Minister actually has to do everything else with regard to the members of the board. Under Sub-section (4) resignation is to the Minister. Under Sub-section (5) the Minister has to approve the amount of leave which they may have, and also has to declare the office vacant. In Subsection (6) he may remove any member of the board for inability or misbehaviour.
It seems to us it would be much more consistent, therefore, if the Minister were the actual appointing person after consultation with this new body of trustees. That would put in the hands of the Minister the whole of the negotiations between the advisory body and the people who were to be appointed, that is to say, he would ministerially act, either to appoint, dismiss, give leave or whatever it might be. He would be the one voice who spoke for these various persons, and we hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, not in any sense as intending to reverse the policy which the House has decided upon in Committee, but as being intended to improve the operation of the Act while still maintaining the principle which, presumably, the House thinks right, but which we think wrong.

4.14 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir. Thomas Inskip): The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is not the intention of this Amendment to reverse the decision arrived at by the Committee, and it is quite true that in form the Amendment is not a direct reversal of that decision, but I am inclined to think that its merits would be greater, although I could not accept it—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seconding the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question has been put from the Chair.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask if it has been seconded?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in accordance with practice, when an Amendment is moved from the Front Bench, to require a Seconder.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the Amendment would have greater merits, although I could not accept it, if it were a direct reversal of the proposal contained in the Bill. The original proposal was that the Minister should appoint the board, but the plan adopted by the Committee, after a great deal of consideration, was that the Appointing Trustees should appoint the board. Now the hon. and learned Member desires that the Minister shall appoint the board, after consulting the Appointing Trustees. It seems to make the worst of both worlds. Now that the Minister is to have the responsibility of appointing the board, I think that it should be his responsibility, and, if he is a wise man he will, no doubt, consult such persons in private as it is his duty to consult. It was the proposal of which, I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party are in favour which the Committee by a very large majority rejected. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has no intention of attempting to go back upon that position and to put back the Minister as the appointing body, but he wants to say that the; Minister is to be the appointing body after consulting, and, I suppose, that that means, with the consent of the Appointing Trustees. It seems in substance to be very much the same thing as making the Minister the appointing body, but with the complication that he has to consult the body whose advice he need not take but whose advice it will perhaps be difficult for him to refuse if the body in question choose to promote a conflict of opinion with him.
The advice which I respectfully tender to the House is that they shall adhere to the decision that the Appointing Trustees should appoint the Transport Board, and that the Minister should be left with the powers which later Subsections will give him. I think that, on the whole, it is not an undesirable division of duties that the Minister
should be charged with the duty of removing any person from the board who is unable to perform his duties, and that the Appointing Trustees should fill the vacancy if one should thus be created. That will prevent any suspicion of a removal having been brought about with a view to providing an opportunity to fill the vacancy by appointing a particular person. The Minister will remove,

and the Appointing Trustees will appoint, and you will thus have a division of duties which, on the whole, will be in the public interest and I ask the House of Commons to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 228.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[4.19 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Crossley, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Lesile


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Albery, Irving James
Davison, Sir William Henry
Horobin, Ian M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Denman, Hon. R D.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Denville, Alfred
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Doran, Edward
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Dunglass, Lord
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brogravs Campbell
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Elmley, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bernays, Robert
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Boulton, W. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Law, Sir Alfred


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fox, Sir Gifford
Levy, Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lewis, Oswald


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mabane, William


Butler, Richard Austen
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goff, Sir Park
McCorquodale, M. S.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKie, John Hamilton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hales, Harold K.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Martin, Thomas B.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clarke, Frank
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hanbury, Cecil
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hartland, George A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooke, Douglas
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morgan, Robert H.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Munro, Patrick


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H-
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Robinson, John Roland
Summersby, Charles H.


North, Captain Edward T.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nunn, William
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Patrick. Colin M.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Penny, Sir George
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Petherick, M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Potter, John
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Pybus, Percy John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wise, Alfred R.


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Womersley, Walter James


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ray, Sir William
Strauss, Edward A.



Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Lord Erskine.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "persons," to insert the words:
including the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.
The General Council of the Trades Union Congress is such an important body in the industrial affairs of this country that it really ought to be consulted in connection with these appointments. We do not believe that it would be going outside the powers of appointment to consult a body of this kind. They represent such a huge body of the industrial community that their views ought to be heard at least with respect. The General Council of the Trades Union Congress is really the nerve center of the whole of the trade union movement of the country. The trade union movement is largely incorporated in the Bill now before the House. Practically speaking, every person employed under the new board will be a member of the Trades Union Congress. They are men of proved capacity and great knowledge in this direction. They have in the past proved to be efficient advisers, and on many occasions they have been taken into consideration and consultation by more than one Government on matters of really great importance which required to be considered from the two points of view. They are selected by trade union people from the whole of the country, and they have the confidence of a large number of people connected with the industrial movement of the country. Representing,
as they do, this great organisation, we feel that it will not in any way be lowering to the Appointing Trustees to take them into consultation. They will be able to offer advice which will help the Appointing Trustees in the work which they have before them. We consider that the Amendment should be accepted, because we believe that, after consultation with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, the position of the Appointing Trustees will be strengthened very considerably.

4.30 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member proposes to mention one body whom the Appointing Trustees are to consult. He does not propose that the Appointing Trustees should be prevented from consulting anybody else. He mentions one of a number of bodies whom the Appointing Trustees may consult if they think fit. I would call the attention of the hon. Member and of the House to the fact that there is nothing to prevent the Appointing Trustees from consulting the Council of the Trades Union Congress if the Trustees think fit. The hon. Member wants to put in the Council of the Trades Union Congress as a body whom the Appointing Trustees must consult. I perhaps do not altogether share the hon. Member's opinion as to the great merits and virtues of the Council of the Trades Union Congress, but I do not want to get into a controversy with him and, for the purpose of my argument, I will accept all his testimonials as to the merits and virtues
of that body. If they be so full of merit as he describes, they are certainly a body whom the Appointing Trustees are likely to consult. I should prefer to leave it at that. I do object to picking out one body, however excellent, and saying that they are to be consulted, when there are many other bodies equally full of knowledge and experience. To single out one would be invidious. I suggest that it would be better to leave the Clause in the wide terms in which it stands at the present time, which empowers the Appointing Trustees to consult any body when it thinks fit to do so in particular circumstances.

4.33 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his indication that, no doubt, this particular body will be consulted. [HON. MEMBERS: "May."] If the Appointing Trustees do their duty they will be consulted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What I said was:
"If the body in question is so full of virtue as the hon. Member thinks."

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of this importance is not going to rely on some jesting phrase. From the point of view of the workers, this body is a body of importance. Whatever its particular merits may be, there are, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, many other bodies which are of importance. If we are to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that in the view of the Government this would be a proper and right body to be consulted, I do not think we need take the matter any further.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer to Board of Passenger Transport Undertakings.)

4.35 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out the words "sinking funds," and to insert instead thereof the words:
moneys representing any fund established by the authority for the redemption of any loan raised by them for the purposes of the transferred undertaking.
This Amendment is purely drafting. It is part of the terms of acquisition of
the undertakings that the sinking funds established by the authorities for the redemption of their debt shall remain with the authorities and be excepted from transfer to the board. There may, however, be sinking funds for other purposes, such as renewals, which should pass to the board as part of the transferred undertakings. The Amendment is to make it clear that only moneys representing sinking funds established by the authority for the redemption of loans shall be excluded from the transfer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, after the word "Limited," to insert the words:
including all lands, works, and other property, powers rights, and privileges held or enjoyed in. connection therewith or appertaining thereto (other than investments, cash, or other liquid assets or book debts and the freehold premises comprising a garage situate in Bisector Road, Aylesbury, in the county of Buckingham, and any rights or interests of the undertakers in any other undertaking).
This is also a drafting Amendment and is intended to define the extent to which the undertaking of the Premier Line, which may be taken over by the board. The Amendment has been agreed with the Premier Line, Limited.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, after the first "the," to insert the word "County."
This is a drafting Amendment. Corydon is a county borough.

Amendment agreed to.

4.38 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlamp): I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, at end, to insert the words:
(x) in respect of any roads whereon any light railway is laid by virtue of the Middlesex Light Railways Orders, 1901 to 1932, the Board shall be subject to the same liability to repair, maintain, and keep in good condition parts of the roads of which the Middlesex County Council are the highway authority as they are, by virtue of the transfer effected by this Section, subject to in respect of parts of the roads of Which the said county council are not the highway authority; and the said county council shall, in respect of the roads of which they are the highway authority, have all the powers,
rights, and privileges which by the County of Middlesex Light Railways Orders, 1901 to 1932, and Part IV of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1925, are vested in highway authorities other than the said county council; and
(xi) the liability of the Middlesex County Council under sub-section (2) of Section twenty-five of the County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1901, sub-section (2) of Section twenty-five of the County of Middlesex Light Railways Order, 1903, and sub-section (2) of Section twenty-five of the County of Middlesex (Waltham Cross and Enfield) Light Railways Order, 1906, or under any of the said sub-sections as incorporated with, or made applicable, to the County of Middlesex Light Railways Orders, 1901 to 1932, shall continue to be and shall be deemed always to have been discharged by the Middlesex County Council as highway authority.
This Amendment, which has been agreed with Middlesex County Council, is necessary because in certain of the Light Railway Orders under which the Middlesex County Council work they are obliged to maintain the whole of the road; not only the tramway track and 18 inches on each side of it but the whole road. The county council in the past have been advised that, notwithstanding the provision under these orders, the charges could be on their highway expenditure and not on their light railway account. This is not a particularly satisfactory arrangement and the county council agree that when the board takes over it shall be put in an unassailable position. The effect of the Clause will be that the board will be freed from the obligation of road maintenance and will be merely subject to the same rules as corresponding light railways and tramways under their superintendence. It will be settled beyond all question by this Amendment that the county Council is the responsible authority for the maintenance of the rest of the road.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions relating to Associated Equipment Company, Limited.)

4.40 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the provisions of this Section.
This Amendment covers an agreement between the Associated Equipment Company
and the Union Surplus Lands Company. When the Clause was settled by the Joint Select Committee it was intended to apply to an agreement between the Associated Equipment Company and the Underground Company relating to the supply of motor vehicles. But there was another agreement between the Associated Equipment Company and the Union Surplus Lands Company, which has been taken over by the board, and that agreement guaranteed a minimum return on the purchase price paid by the Union Surplus Lands Company to the Equipment Company in respect of certain premises. This Amendment is to make quite certain that the Associated Equipment Company is still to have this liability and they are not relieved of it.

Captain STRICKLAND: Does this agreement apply only to the disposal of the site of the omnibus factory at Waltham stow vacated by the Associated Equipment Company?

Mr. PYBUS: I am informed that that is so.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister tell us if there is any agreement as to price? I assume that before the Minister accepted the Amendment he would go into the details, and it is essential that the House should have the whole of the details.

Mr. PYBUS: The question of the amount of the purchase price does not arise. It is a question of a minimum return on the purchase price paid to the Associated Equipment Company in respect of property and the Associated Equipment Company guarantees that minimum rate to the board.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What is the minimum rate?

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Is this a further charge on the resources of the board?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The whole purpose of the Amendment is to provide that it shall not fall upon the board but that the Associated Equipment Company shall remain liable to discharge the burden of this guarantee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 20, at the end, insert the words:
This Section shall not apply to rights or liabilities arising by virtue or the deed of covenant made the twelfth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, between the Equipment Company and the Union Surplus Lands Company, Limited, or any deed of covenant varying or amending the aforementioned deed of covenant.

CLAUSE 7.—(Consideration for transfer of undertakings other than local authorities' undertakings.)

4.43 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words:
(other than the Tramways (M.E.T.) Omnibus Company, Limited).
In this case certain debentures were about to be redeemed at the time the agreement was made and no transport stock was awarded in respect of them. Accordingly, it is necessary to exempt this company from the provisions of Clause 7 (1) which provide for a reduction of the transport stock originally allocated where debentures have been redeemed since the date of the settlement. The Amendment ensures that this should be so. The sum involved is under £ 4,000.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12 —(Constitution and procedure of arbitration tribunal.)

4.44 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 20, Line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
and the arbitration tribunal may order the taxation of any costs referred to in this sub-section in such manner and on such scale or principle as they may think fit.
Sub-section (12) of the Clause provides that the arbitration tribunal appointed under the Clause may direct persons to pay the whole or part of the costs of the board. It is a little doubtful whether this power is sufficiently wide to enable the arbitration tribunal to make direction which will require the costs to be taxed, and the object of the words which I propose to add is to enable the arbitration tribunal to direct taxation, so as to prevent the parties concerned from having to bear the burden of extravagant costs incurred in the conduct of proceedings. It is for the purpose of protecting people who have had occasion to petition before the arbitration tribunal.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I appreciate the object of the right hon. Gentleman. Is this taxation to be taxation in the High Court? If so, I do not appreciate how the taxing master will get his jurisdiction. Or is it to be taxation by the arbitrator? In that case it seems hardly necessary to call it taxation, if he has already full jurisdiction in cases where an objection is
unreasonable or frivolous and vexatious
to
direct the person put in power to claim an objection to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the board.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The whole or any part of the costs, that is the taxed costs—

Sir S. CRIPPS: By whom?

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL: The costs will be taxed by the officer of the tribunal. In order to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman may I say that this Sub-section is in precisely the same terms as a Section in the Metropolitan Water Act, 1902, which has been found to work with facility and satisfaction to the persons concerned. I do not know whether I am quite right in saying that the officer of the tribunal will tax the costs, but the fact that the provision comes from the Metropolitan Water Act will reassure the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Is not the sole purpose of the Amendment to insure that the costs to be borne by the board shall be reasonable?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes. I find that I am wrong in saying that it is to be the official of the tribunal. It is under Section 14 of the Act that the High Court taxing master gets his authority to tax costs.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power of board to run public service vehicles.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE:

In page 24, to leave out lines 10 and 11.

In line 38, to leave out the word "not."

In line 39, to leave out from the word "Board," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
whether within or without the special area, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section ninety-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the board shall not use any public service vehicle as a stage carriage, whether by short stages or otherwise, or as an express carriage within the special area, except under a road service license granted by the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner.

In page 25, line 5, to leave out Subsection (4).

4.48 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: These four Amendments are all linked together, and I should like to know whether it is possible to discuss them together.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not quite realise that the first Amendment necessarily was part of the remaining three. If the hon. Member and his friends regard the four Amendments as standing together the convenient thing will be to deal with them as one Amendment; then the last three Amendments will then stand or fall on the decision on the first Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not wish to raise any difficulty, but the Amendments deal with distinctly different points, and they will have to be argued as different parts of the same subject.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the Government or any other section of Members of the House take that view then the Amendments must be treated accordingly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) will move his first Amendment.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 24, to leave out lines 10 and 11.
The object of the Amendment is to protect the interests of the public and the smaller services which are now operating on the roads concerned to the benefit of the public. I am not a London Member and it may be asked why I should be moving this Amendment. I should be very glad if my constituency was not touched by this Bill, but as it is I think it is my duty to defend the interests of the people in my constituency and the smaller services which have been operating with efficiency. It is a remarkable thing that the chief opponents of the Bill are London Members or Members for constituencies which lie just outside the London passenger transport area,
and that the chief supporters of the Bill are hon. Members who sit for constituencies a distance from London. The Amendment would deprive the London combine of running services on certain spurs which strike out from the London passenger transport area. On a map you see certain spurs colored blue and yellow, and the Bill gives the London combine the power to run services on these spurs. Previously they were confined to the area on the map.
Take the road from Slough to Maidenhead. On this road the Green Line is running a service. One of the objects of the Bill is to provide assets for the Underground combine in their dealing with the board. The Green Line is one of the properties of the Underground combine, and they are running 'a service on this particular road, and upon other spurs, in order to provide assets for the Underground combine. The result is that the existing efficient services have been considerably damaged and there has been an over-service on these roads. The matter came before the Traffic Commissioners. The licenses of the Green Line were strongly opposed by the other operators, and as a result several services of the Green Line were disallowed. An appeal was made to the Minister, who in some cases has upheld the decision of the Traffic Commissioners. Other cases have still to be heard. The paragraph in this Clause gives to the London combine, which owns the Green Line, the power to replace the Green Line services on roads from which they have been forbidden by the Traffic Commissioners, to the detriment of the efficient services already plying there, 'and without any benefit to the public. Those are the reasons for moving the Amendment.

4.55 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT: I beg to second the Amendment, and I appeal to the Minister to accept it on the ground that the public will not suffer in any way. They will have quite as good, perhaps a better, service than they will have if he refuses it. I am interested in the service on the road between Slough and Maidenhead because it operates from the town which I have the honor to represent. The company started in quite a small way and by much endeavor, good work and intelligent application have succeeded in producing a first-class service. It has been challenged
twice as to its efficiency, and has been upheld twice by the Commissioners and once by the Minister. There is no doubt that hon. Members were returned to this Parliament to uphold private endeavors. If the Amendment is not accepted the it is the case of a successful private endeavor being crushed. That is entirely contrary to any principle for which we were elected, and, therefore, I appeal to the Minister of Transport to accept the Amendment. It is difficult enough in these days for private enterprise to make good. We suffer from heavy taxation, and there is a feeling of despair, perhaps it is wrong, among many people that whatever they may do they are handicapped by Government action. I do not wish it to be thought that the Government are favoring what is in reality a scheme of nationalisation. The area under consideration does not wish an alteration; they do not wish to be swallowed up by this Bill. Things are going on quite satisfactorily. Why interfere and Cause bitterness, and destroy what is really a good service? The Amendment will make no difference at all to the Bill, but it will make this difference, that we shall be upholding a principle which I believe is very dear to the vast majority of hon. Members in this House.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I make an appeal to the Minister? By accepting a useful Amendment earlier he has done something to remove hostility to the Bill, an hostility which is felt by Members not only inside but outside the London area. Many of us feel that the Government should accept an Amendment which will do no real harm to the Bill. No case has yet been made for allowing this great octopus to spread out its tentacles into various odd corners, far outside the London area. A strong case has been made against it, and if the Government refuse to accept a reasonable Amendment it may cause bitter hostility amongst many of their supporters. Before the representative of the Government gets up and reads his brief, which has been supplied by some office, which should be abolished, it would be better if they decided that they would accept a perfectly sensible Amendment, which does not hurt the Bill and which puts some kind of restriction on the enormous
power of this board. I hope the Government will be able to accept the real feeling of the House of Commons on this matter, which undoubtedly is that we should not allow this body to go outside a very restricted area. They would thus do something to remove a fear which some of us have, no matter how far we may be from London, that the time may come when we also may be included in this monstrous Bill.

5 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like to add that at one time I represented a constituency which is very materially affected: that which is now represented by my hon. Friend who seconded this Amendment. I feel very strongly that here the Government have an opportunity, without in any way altering the general structure of their Bill, to meet a substantial grievance. We may be wrong in our views, but we feel that a great monopoly is acquiring a little too much influence. This great monopoly wants to obtain by Act of Parliament something in the nature of what a court of justice has already decided it should not have. Here we have these services being provided by outside companies, meeting the requirements of the public; and a competing organisation, with the enormous resources of the Combine behind it, attempting to destroy these smaller bodies. In other words, the Green Line were the pirates of this service. We know how much the Combine has objected to the pirates and how, as a result of the Act of 1924, they were enabled to limit the number of vehicles on the streets and to buy out the pirates in London. It is most unfair, however, when a service has been adequately provided by people of local interests, that this Act should give power to the Combine to re-establish itself in a place where it has no right except the right of free competition and where its services under the principle now established have been shown to be unnecessary.
If the Government want to please a great many of their supporters who do not like this Bill much anyhow, they will accept this Amendment. On this issue we feel that we are appealing for same support for the independent companies against what in the future may be a semi nationalised service. The Government
will thereby smooth the passage of the Bill a great deal more than will otherwise be the case. If I wished to make the passage of the Bill a great deal more difficult, I should ask the Government to reject the Amendment. If they do, they will much increase the trouble which the Bill will have in another place. Both this and the subsequent Amendment are informed by the same purpose: that of permitting moderate-sized enterprises the right to live, and to protect them from being dominated by an enormous combination which will have the support of the State and will be entitled to operate throughout the metropolitan area and to some extent outside it.

5.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Nothing would give more satisfaction to me than to be of help to my two hon. Friends who have made such eloquent appeals in favor of this Amendment, but I think that they are laboring under a mistake. In listening to the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment, one might have supposed that these spur roads to which they refer were roads on which the Combine-run services had never been. As a matter of fact, the Combine has run services there for some years past. It is decidedly to the advantage of the public as a whole that the board should be able to run these omnibuses to places like Ayles bury Maidenhead, Royston, Tunbridge Wells—

Captain STRICKLAND: And Harwich !

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, Harwich is not in the area. I am not altogether sure that a number of members of the public, if it were left to them, would not like to be able to travel to Harwich without having to change. That, however, is a matter which we are not called upon to decide. It was part of the agreement reached with the approval of the Joint Select Committee, that these services to be operated by the board should continue, and be taken over by the board, subject to their obtaining the necessary road service licences. The severance of these services, which has been asked for by certain hon. Members, at the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area would, in our opinion, deprive the public of suitable and neces-
sary facilities in transport. We therefore do not think that it would be in the interests of the public to accept this Amendment, and we do not propose to do so.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. ATKINSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has returned a still more effective answer to this Amendment. As I read it, the Bill makes no change whatever in the position of these lines. The lines referred to in the Amendment, that is, in Part II or Part III of the Seventh Schedule, are, by their description, outside the London Passenger Transport Area. They are therefore just as subject to the traffic commissioners—as I read it —as they are at the present moment. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment suggested that the Bill tended to give, by statute, something that has been refused by a court of justice. As I read it, the Bill does not give anything whatever; it merely continues to give to, say, the Green Line power to apply to the traffic commissioners to run services on the roads in question. It does not give them a statutory right to do so unless they first get the license of the traffic commissioners. If I am right in my reading of the Clause, there is really no grievance, because the position will be exactly what it is now. If the traffic commissioners think the Green Line should not have this or that right, the Bill gives them no reason for altering their opinion. It certainly confers no right whatever to a licence from the traffic commissioners.

5.7 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I wish to be quite clear about the effect of this Amendment. As I read it, I think I am correct in saying that, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there will be no Green Line and no independent undertakings; they will all disappear and be absorbed and merged into one big authority. If I am wrong, I am in favour of the Amendment. I understood that by Part V independent undertakings were to be merged and the companies that are now running on these fork roads— like the Premier, and various others— will disappear. If they are to disappear or merge, then they are perfectly right in fighting for their rights. I understood that the very long list in the Schedule, covering some two pages and including
some 60 or 70 companies, covered every enterprise: all enterprises owned by the Underground Combine and all the private enterprises that ran on the various roads in the area and a good many miles out of it.

5.9 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask the Minister, or whoever is going to reply, to put the position clearly to us? The Mover and supporters of the Amendment have represented it as a measure of protection for private enterprise against the monopoly which this Bill confers. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman who responded on behalf of the Ministry to say that it makes no change in the existing condition. If that is correct, that the Bill does not affect the situation in any way, then I suppose that the Amendment will not be required. I should, however, like to be definitely informed on the situation and on the effect which the Amendment would produce. If the paragraph will curtail further the opportunities of private enterprise and further strengthen this undesirable monopoly, I hope that we may be told clearly what is to take place.

5.10 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry that some hon. Members are still a little uncertain about this provision in the Clause with which we are now dealing. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry described these routes with which we are dealing as spur roads. That is a very apt phrase, if one looks at the map. Hon. Members can picture for themselves an area which is circumscribed by a large circle, within which certain things will be limited: the transport undertakings may carry out their services without the necessity for a road service licence. Hon. Members may then imagine roads which stretch out to the east or west, as the case may be, or in some other direction, of short lengths. They will realise that they are dealing only with roads outside that part of the London district in which the Transport Board need not obtain road service licences. On these spur roads the board will have to obtain licences. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway, I can tell him that it is in precisely the same position as anybody else on these spur roads. If, however,
we leave out these two lines, the Transport Board will be prevented from running its services on these spur roads, and that would be to the great prejudice and inconvenience of people concerned in those districts. When the vehicles of the Transport Board reach the line which marks the termination of the area in which they have the monopoly, passengers would have to disembark and get into another line of vehicles to carry them two or three miles to their destination.
In order to provide for the convenience of passengers who wish to get to the end of these spur roads, it is provided in the Bill, with the consent of the operating companies, that the Road Transport Board shall have additional powers: that is to say, over the spur roads, which are comparatively few in number and only stretch for a few miles—five or ten miles—into some particular district. The Bill might be drafted with the idea of enlarging the whole circle so as to cover these spur roads, but that was not done. We prefer to limit these powers actually to the roads themselves which are marked on the map, which are few in number and short in extent, and have been picked out with the consent of the operating companies for the sole purpose of meeting the convenience of the inhabitants. There will be no monopoly on these roads. It will be open to anybody to obtain road service licences if they can, to conduct services on them. I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the House to allow the Amendment to be rejected.

5.13 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: The explanation given by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General does not cover the objection in the minds of those who dislike this Bill from start to finish as being merely a Socialist Measure. What he has said confirms our impression of the unfair competition which is going to be placed on outside companies by virtue of this monopoly. The learned Attorney-General claims that it is to be to the advantage of the public that the monopoly omnibuses shall be able to go to the boundary of the London Transport Area and then, instead of their passengers having to get off and travel in another vehicle, they shall be able to continue on that journey into the heart of the district at present organised and worked
efficiently by these outside companies. I am, however, very doubtful whether the Attorney-General would equally say that for the convenience of the public these outside operating omnibuses should be allowed to come into spurs inside the London Transport Area. If the thing applies in the outward passage, it equally applies in the inward passage. These efficient outside companies will be permitted to run up to the boundary, and then their passengers will have to transfer into those omnibuses that are permitted to go to the actual district.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is quite a different point.

Captain STRICKLAND: I know, because you have a powerful monopoly working from the center on one hand, and on the other hand you have a number of little efficient companies which possibly will be crushed out by the unfair competition which is going to be placed on the spurs. This is the very reason why we feel ourselves so bitterly opposed to the Bill. A point which Members seem to have lost sight of is the enormous area to be covered. When you think of it, it is 2,000 square miles, and affects one-fifth of the population of the whole of Great Britain. One can see how very necessary it is, if one is to protect private enterprise, to see that every kind of consideration is given to these outside companies. If the big combine is allowed to run into their areas on these spur roads, equally the outside omnibuses should be allowed to run into spurs inside the London Passenger Transport Area, if you are to give a square deal all round. I urge the Government to accept this Amendment in its entirety and at least to show that they have not forgotten the principle for which they have stood in the past.

Amendment negatived.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 25, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I do not conceal the fact that my Amendment in page 24, line 39, opens up a very large issue, no less than that of re-placing the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner in the Bill. The object is to have some authority inside London which
will to some extent control the Combine and deal with the various services running into London which are now independent of the Combine and give them a square deal; but, in view of the opposition of the Government to the granting of anything to these small companies, and the Government's readiness to push out competition, I feel that it is of little use to move the Amendment, and I therefore do not do so.
We shall have in London an uncontrolled Combine, which can arrange its time-tables so as to suit its own services that run along the spurs, and make them detrimental to the services and timetables of these smaller companies. Subsection (4) recommends the Traffic Commissioners outside the area of London passenger transport to have particular care for the interests of the Combine. That is not dealing fairly with the services running into London. It has been shown by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) that the Government are asking for the Combine what they are not willing to give to the smaller services running into London. In opposing a previous Amendment of mine the learned Attorney-General showed how the public might suffer some inconvenience by changing omnibuses if they were not conveyed outwardly by the vehicles of the Combine, but he did not admit that exactly the same inconvenience to the public will be caused by the fact that these smaller services running into London are not allowed to operate inside the London area. I ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to omit this Sub-section?

Dr. HOWITT: I beg to second the Amendment, and I appeal to the Government to deal with it more leniently than they did with an earlier Amendment.

5.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Sub-section (4) is merely to carry out what is already provided in Clause 3. Clause 3 provides that it shall be the general duty of the board to secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area. Subsection (4) merely provides that the Traffic Commissioners, in considering whether they will grant road service licenses, shall bear in mind the duty which is created
by Clause 3, and that Clause we have passed. I quite agree that probably if the Sub-section were left out it would be the duty of the Traffic Commissioners to bear in mind Clause 3, but it is very desirable that there should be a pointer so that "he who runs may read," knowing what are the conditions under which it is likely that he will obtain the desired road service licence. I should regret very much if the Sub-section were omitted, if only in the interests of clarity and the general understanding of this Bill when it becomes an Act.
I must deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) and the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland). It does show a want of appreciation of the Bill which I did not suspect in the case of my hon. Friends. They have reproached the Government for not allowing the existing services to penetrate the sacred circle and to operate within that circle; in other words, to do what a few moments ago I claimed for the vehicles of the road transport board, namely, to extend into the outside territory. If my hon. Friends will refer to the provisions of Clause 16 they will find that it is permissive for these privately-owned services to pick up outside and to set down inside, or to pick up inside and set down outside, or to pick up outside and go right through the circle and set down outside; so that these privately-owned services have precisely the same privileges as, a few moments ago, I suggested should be conferred on the Transport Board, that is of carrying their passengers in the way most convenient to the public.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am very much obliged to the learned Attorney-General for his explanation and for making it clear that the services running inwards will have just the same privileges as the services of the Combine running outwards. With the consent of my hon. Friend I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 16.—(Restriction on carriage of road passengers on certain journeys in London Traffic Area.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 4, after the word "District," insert the word "Traction."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions relating to provincial operating companies.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 14, after the word
"District," insert the word "Traction."

In page 31, line 26, after the first word "Company," insert the words "the Eastern National Omnibus Company, Limited."

In line 26, leave out the words "the Eastern National Company, Limited."— [Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Provision for exercise by board of powers and duties of London County Council with respect to Thames passenger vessel service.)

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
In view of a new Clause which is to be inserted in the Bill Clause 19 is now not necessary.

Mr. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. PYBUS: We accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Restriction on power of manufacture.)

5.23 p.m.

Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: I beg to move, in page 33, line 34, to leave out the word "thirty-one" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."
This Amendment is for the purpose of altering the basis of the average of five years which will be taken to limit the future production of the London General Omnibus Company's works at Chiswick. If there are to be any restrictions upon production based upon an average, that average should be as up-to-date as possible. Owing to the protracted discussions on this Bill the average stated in the Bill dates from 1st January, 1931. That is more than two years ago. It would not matter if production at the Chiswick works had remained constant, but in the last year or two production has increased very much, the works have been improved and it has been made possible to produce more omnibus bodies. In fact production has increased very much. For that reason, in fairness to the men employed in those works, I move to substitute 1st January, 1932, for 1st January, 1931. That would give an
average more in consonance with the present production. We are not imposing upon the Board anything which is undesirable. We are making it possible for them to manufacture in works which are at present the most efficient of their kind in the country.

Captain STRICKLAND: Question!

Mr. MITCHELL: There is no question about it. If my hon. and gallant Friend can mention any works that are more efficient I shall be very glad to know of them. In this matter I have not only the support of the men employed at Chiswick and of the men's union, but I have authority to say that the London General Omnibus Company's works at Chiswick have the best conditions of employment of any omnibus works in this country.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment. The original date was put in the Bill two years ago. When you suspend a Bill from one year to another, as this Bill has been suspended, it is an additional reason for altering a date of this kind. I am not a bit in favour of this Clause, but if we are to have a date of any kind it should be one which bears some relation to the time when the Bill is likely to pass the House of Commons.

5.28 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I strongly oppose the Amendment. This matter was gone into very fully by the Select Committee. There was a distinct understanding, based on the figures produced before the Select Committee, that the date in the Clause would represent a fair compromise between the vast number of people employed by manufacturing organisations and those referred to in this particular Clause. There is no question as to the knowledge possessed by the Select Committee on this matter, and it will be within the memory of those who have studied the minutes that at that Committee it was first suggested that no manufacturing whatever should be permitted by this vast monopoly—in other words, that it was not to be allowed to interfere with private enterprise in other parts of the country with which it would be in favoured competition. A compromise was reached after consideration, and the original in-
tention of the Committee that no manufacturing powers should be granted was altered. It was agreed that the average of the five years definitely named should be taken as the basis upon which a certain amount of manufacturing should be permitted. That decision was accepted as an honourable compromise by both sides, and I appeal to the Government now to stand by the definite opinion of the Select Committee.

5.32 p.m.

Dr. SALTER: I wish to submit an additional reason why the date should be altered as suggested in the Amendment. If the average be taken for the five years ended in 1931, it will mean the inclusion of the year 1926, which was entirely abnormal. In that year there was a prolonged coal strike, there was the general strike, and production in the works in question was abnormally reduced over a long period. In fact, I believe that work was suspended for some time. If the dates remain as they are now and if that year be included, then the average will be abnormally now.

5.33 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The exact number of omnibuses which might be constructed at these works was a matter of controversy during the Committee stage, and indeed has been a matter of controversy since the Bill was introduced two years ago, when it was proposed that very extensive powers, in this respect should be given to the Transport Board. It was suggested during the Committee stage, I think by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that the works in question were constructing 100 bodies per week at the present time. If the Amendment is accepted the number of bodies that could be constructed would be about 520—

Sir S. CRIPPS: A week.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, a, year. I do not know whether the figure which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave on the last occasion is anything like right. I cannot but think that there is a mistake about that figure of 100 bodies per week. The Government propose to accept the Amendment. We think it a-reasonable course to exclude, as the hon. Member opposite has just suggested, the year 1926, during which all industry was
to a large extent paralysed. We therefore propose to take the average over the years from 1927 to 1931 which we think will be a fair representation of the normal activities of this undertaking. I accept the Amendment therefore, without engaging in any controversy with the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland), who is rightly trying to protect the interests of his constituency. I do not think he will find that this will hurt the interests of his constituency. I believe that there will be plenty of work for the expanding trade of the hon. and gallant Member's constituency as well as for Chiswick.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I asked him to look into this matter of the 1926 figures and he promised to do so. We of course are not satisfied with the mere alteration in the date. We should have liked an opportunity of dealing with what we consider to be the more important proposal which we had on the Order Paper in relation to the whole matter. Unfortunately, that Amendment has not been selected and therefore we must leave the matter as it stands.

Sir K VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Is it within the Attorney-General's knowledge that the fact that the proposed five years included 1926 was clearly before and was under the consideration of the Select Committee; and am I correct in suggesting that the five years now indicated in the Bill represents the period agreed upon among the interests concerned?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot answer for what was before the Select Committee but I have reason to believe that all the facts relevant to this matter were before them, because they took a great deal of time. I think this point was before them. As to an agreement, I am not aware of any agreement which in any way fetters the action of this House in putting into the Bill what it thinks right.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Restriction on power of board to establish garages.)

5.37 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 34, line 3, to leave out paragraph (b).
I move this Amendment in order to ask the Attorney-General whether he can give us any more information regarding the possibility of indirectly supplying fuel at these garages. He will remember that in Committee the question arose as to whether it would be possible for those who garage their cars at these public garages belonging to the Transport Board to get, indirectly, supplies of fuel and so forth. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been able to ascertain whether, under the terms of the Bill, it will be possible to have such supplies made available even though they may not actually be sold by the board itself?

5.38 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: I promised to look into this matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman desired us to empower the board to sell fuel but the majority of the House in Committee were against that proposel. I think I interposed then to say that there would still be power to lease premises for the purpose of allowing private persons to supply, in convenient proximity to the garages, fuel and motor accessories. I have looked into the question and there is no doubt that both under Clause 3 and Clause 5 powers will be taken by the Transport Board which will enable them to lease land to private persons who will, no doubt, seize with avidity the opportunity of supplying oil, motor accessories and so forth to all persons resorting to these garages. Railway companies, for instance, have statutory powers to lease premises for such purposes. The Transport Board will have similar powers. I hope that will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman failing what I know he would like to have, namely, the power to supply these commodities vested in the board itself.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 30.—(Representations by local authorities as to withdrawal, reduction of or need for services provided or to be provided, by the board.)

5.40 p.m.

Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, in page 42, line 26, to leave out the words "apply
to the rates tribunal," and to insert instead thereof the words
"make representations to the Minister."
I suggest that the Railway Rates Tribunal is an inappropriate body to which to make applications of this sort. It does not possess a qualified personnel, that is to say a personnel specially informed upon the problems of London traffic. It does not possess a staff which has access to the information necessary in determining these applications, and it has not the general experience. It is a body which has been established for a totally different purpose, and we suggest that from it, local authorities will not get the kind of hearing or the satisfaction to which they are entitled. Local authorities in London have some experience of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and have found it very expensive to make applications to that body. It is necessary for them to be represented by counsel, whereas if they could make representations to the Minister the cost would be reduced to a minimum. Further, the Minister has at his disposal in the Traffic Advisory Committee a body possessing both the personnel and the staff, with the experience, the information, and the records which would enable them to give fair and satisfactory decision. If this Amendment were adopted in place of the words at present in the Bill the Minister would be able to determine these matters after reference to the Traffic Advisory Committee and from every point of view I suggest that would be the more satisfactory course.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I appreciate the fact that this Amendment is an effort to improve the Bill. I am not particularly attracted to the alternative of making representations to the Minister but on the whole I think it gives more opportunity to the public for ventilating grievances than application to the Railway Rates Tribunal. That body as far as it goes is an excellent authority. It has a good reputation because it is essentially of a judicial character. Its work in the past has largely been concerned with questions of fares, and has consisted of hearing evidence, and weighing up the
pros and cons of a case and considering the point of view of finance and the point of view of the particular railway company concerned. Here however we are dealing with the daily transport of a population of about 8,000,000, a matter of vital concern and of a larger and a wider character than could be appropriately referred to such an authority.
I have all along felt that the vital weakness of this Bill is that it creates a monopoly in such an essential service as this, and that more direct contact with the public ought to be provided in it. I have always maintained that there is no substitute for local government in affairs of this kind which affect the daily lives of so many people. These transport services might be described as the lifeblood of an immense urban area, and I suggest that adequate protection is not provided for the public by entrusting these powers to a body like the Railway Rates Tribunal. As I say, I am not satisfied with the alternative of the Minister, but on the whole, with all his faults I think we would prefer him, because we can get at him and "chivvy" him, and make his life a burden and cross-examine him at Question Time and compel him to sit up and listen. After all, even the House of Commons has still some power, though it may be very limited. We have opportunities on the Adjournment. The Eleven o'clock Rule, with all its faults, gives us a half-hour in which to raise these questions if, for instance, some vital transport service is cut down, and we can criticise the Minister and make him answer for his sins on such occasions. Then there is the Minister's salary, always a vulnerable point with any Minister. We can move to reduce his salary. No Minister likes to be pilloried, and I suggest that, as we have an expensive organisation at the Ministry, with highly-trained officials who make a study of the whole transport problem, it is better to have that protection for the public than the original proposals in the Bill.
I understand that the Bill now attempts to placate the opposition—those who do not like this great monopoly—in a certain direction. Well, it has not placated the opposition, and now that the Government are setting up something on a scale unprecedented in our history, the House of Commons should keep control, should
keep its hands on the machine in order to protect the public. I can understand that this monopoly when it operates may be harsh, very inhuman, very much out of touch with public opinion, and it may try merely to make the two ends meet, to consider the financial side of the problem. But there is something much more in a traffic service like this than pounds, shillings, and pence; it affects the very existence of our Metropolitan life. Therefore, on the whole, though I should like to see a more direct contact with local authorities, and a very different authority from the one set up under the Bill, I prefer to preserve the personal contact with the Minister and to put as much responsibility on his shoulders as the Bill will allow. I therefore support the Amendment.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) must know very well that the present Minister of Transport is far more adequate and capable than his predecessor, and I do not see why these quarrels between the different sections of the Liberal party should be brought up in this way. It is very unfair to the hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport. I hope the Government will absolutely refuse to have anything to do with the Amendment. If this Bill is of any value at all, it is because it keeps the Ministry out of it. There is far too much work being put to-day on the various Ministries, and we have got to decentralise. If there is any value in the Bill, it is that it is a great experiment in decentralisation. The Amendment really means that we are to go on having London Members taking up the time of the House of Commons with little tiny questions of a tramway here or an omnibus there. It is that sort of thing that we want to eliminate from this House—these small minds that want to deal always with these petty questions and to have this or that Minister on the mat for a few minutes. That is not what we are for, and I hope the Government will stand out against the Amendment. As to the hon. Member who has just had the satisfaction of pouring out the vials of his wrath upon our very good and competent Minister, I would remind the Government that he is one of the most disloyal of their supporters.

5.50 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are quite possibly two views as to which is the better tribunal to settle questions of this nature, but I would remind those who think the Minister is the better tribunal and may, in the excitement of the moment, anticipate with delight the pleasures of cross-examining him and moving to reduce his salary, that in practice those methods are less efficacious than is sometimes thought. My experience is that no Minister cares a bit about a Motion to reduce his salary, provided always that he has a sufficient majority behind him to defeat the Motion. I do not know what satisfaction the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) would derive from moving to reduce the Minister's salary if the facilities for Bethnal Green proved inadequate. At the end of the evening I fancy he would find himself no better off. On the other hand, if his local authority could be persuaded to view the matter with sufficient seriousness to bring it before the Railway Rates Tribunal, they would be likely to get satisfaction. The House has already decided that the rates tribunal is to deal with questions of fares, and I do not think anybody has quarrelled with that decision. Fares and facilities are so intimately related the one to the other, that it seems to me that it would be an act of folly to allow one tribunal to settle the facilities and another to fix the fares. You would have a perpetual process of the dog chasing its own tail in order that facilities might catch up with fares or fares catch up with facilities.
We propose that the same tribunal shall settle the two questions. In modern Bills I think we are all in danger of being misled by a reference to the Minister. In these matters the Minister does not act personally; he cannot act personally. It is generally supposed that the Minister can and does decide all these questions such as are said to be referred to the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Minister, with the best will in the world, could not settle all the questions of facilities that would be likely to be referred to him if the Amendment were accepted. He may have, and I have no doubt he has, all the excellent qualities that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) ascribes to him, but even supposing we have a succession of Ministers
with those qualities, after all they are not super-men, and they cannot settle all these controversies day in, day out. They will have to be settled by a number of inspectors and persons who will hold inquiries, and in the result you will have a tribunal called the Minister, but which is really a less expert form of the Railway Rates Tribunal. I suggest to the House that we should prefer the Rates Tribunal as being the body that is responsible for fixing both fares and facilities, and the body that will give the amplest opportunity to local authorities and members of the public for making such representations as they may feel to be necessary.

5.53 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quite met the argument in favour of the matter being referred to the Minister, because he will appreciate that it requires a good deal of money to refer matters to the Rates Tribunal, but to refer matters to the Minister and for the Minister to institute an inquiry requires very little money. In fact, it requires no money at all. One of the difficulties as regards the present law is that there must be an initial expenditure in order to start the proceedings and carry them through by anybody who wants any alteration or who wants to object to the withdrawal of facilities. It is vital, if this Clause is going to work at all as it is desired it should work, that there should be easy access to some authority that can stop the withdrawal of facilities if they are threatened, without incurring a great deal of expenditure and prolonged and expensive litigation.
Secondly, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right when he says that matters of fares and facilities are the same thing or should be dealt with by the same tribunal. They never have been so dealt with. The matter of facilities has always been dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commission, and when the Railway Rates Tribunal was set tip to deal with fares and charges, it was specifically limited to that subject-matter, and the Railway and Canal Commission was preserved in its jurisdiction aver the whole question of facilities. This is the first time the Rates Tribunal is being given powers to come within the
jurisdiction now covered by the Railway and Canal Commission, and I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if any tribunal ought to take over the question of facilities, so long as he is going to carry on the two tribunals, it ought to be the Railway and Canal Commission. He will remember that we pointed out during the Committee stage that you will inevitably have an over lapping, and if I may refer to Subsection (10) of the next Clause, Clause 31, where again a matter is referred to the Rates Tribunal for their decision, there clearly you will have many matters arising which would normally go before the Railway and Canal Commission, because those will be matters as regards the main line railways. We suggest that rather than give this perfectly new jurisdiction to the Railway Rates Tribunal, which it has never had before—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The rates tribunal.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg pardon—to the rates tribunal, a jurisdiction which is foreign to the class of matters which they are intending to hand over, he should, so far as facilities are concerned, deal with them by the very convenient method of allowing the Minister to act upon the advice of the Advisory Committee, which, after all, should be the best possible body to deal with such a matter as the withdrawal or granting of facilities. Then the Minister will be able, after getting a proper report from the Advisory Committee, which can hear evidence or anything else that they desire on the matter if they think it necessary, to act in the interests of the public as regards this matter, and it will not merely be dealt with as a bit of litigation between two parties, which is not the right atmosphere for a matter of this sort. One does not want to get into the atmosphere of the London County Council litigating with the Transport Board, with the appeal from the tribunal and all the rest of the paraphernalia which goes with litigation. One wants the matter settled from the point of view of the public after an inquiry by somebody who is competent to make that inquiry. We suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he might perhaps again consider this point, with a view to the possibility of introducing, in another place, a Clause, or altering this Clause, so as to leave the
matter substantially as we propose, in the hands of the Advisory Committee, subject to the supervision and final determination of the Minister.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. D. M. MASON: I rather agree with the last speaker, but perhaps the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), who moved the Amendment, was not quite conscious of what it implied. There is a provision later in the Clause which reads as follows:
Provided that the rates tribunal in determining an application under this Section shall have regard to the desirability of the establishment and maintenance by the board of an adequate reserve fund, and shall not make any Order which would in their opinion preclude the board from complying with their obligations under subsection (4) of Section three of this Act, or which would necessitate the raising of additional capital save with the consent of the board, or which would necessitate an application by the board to Parliament for additional powers.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) as to bringing in the responsibility of the Minister, but would it not be possible for the learned Attorney-General to bear in mind, perhaps in another place, the possibility of bringing in both? I hope it is not proposed by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey to go to a Division.

Dr. SALTER: It is.

Mr. MASON: Well, I suggest that we should not leave out this rates tribunal. The Minister could not provide for an adequate reserve fund, and so on, and do all the things which the tribunal has to do. Both are necessary, it seems to me, and with all respect to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, with whose speech I am largely in agreement,

I would submit that you cannot well destroy the machinery of the Bill by leaving out the rates tribunal. It has responsibilities. If the learned Attorney-General will bring in the Minister and still leave in being the rates tribunal, we shall have the best of both worlds, and it will lead to harmony all round.

6.1 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I want to ask the Attorney-General what are the serious grounds on which he asked us to reject the proposal? He said, in effect, that the Minister of Transport goes to his office in the morning and faces an enormous desk of papers, and, presumably, he is so busy all day that he is unable to make decisions himself and has to delegate them to others, and that, therefore, it is not right that the Minister should be given responsibility.

6.2 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; I am sure that it is my fault, but my hon. and gallant Friend has misunderstood me. I said that the Minister could not possibly conduct the necessary inquiries. A decision when it is made must always be the Minister's decision. Under the Road Traffic Act the decision of the Minister is mentioned, but it is well known that he performs his duties by the help of inspectors who hold inquiries. Inquiries in the present case must be held not by the Minister, but by some tribunal, and I say that the rates tribunal is a better tribunal for this purpose.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 33.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[6.3 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bernays, Robert
Buchan, John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Lestle


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Burnett, John George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Atholl, Duchess of
Blindell, James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Atkinson, Cyril
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Carver, Major William H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Boyce, H. Leslie
Castle Stewart, Earl


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ray, Sir William


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Remer, John R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Ker, J. Campbell
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Robinson, John Roland


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cross, R. H.
Knight, Holford
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross, Ronald D.


Culverwell, Cyrll Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rothschild, James A. de


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davison, Sir William Henry
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Doran, Edward
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Selley, Harry R.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Patrick)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Soper, Richard


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Martin, Thomas B.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Glyn. Major Ralph G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shepherd
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nail, Sir Joseph
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hales, Harold K.
North, Captain Edward T.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nunn, William
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hanbury, Cecil
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hanley, Dennis A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Captain Osbert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hartland, George A.
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick. M.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Alfred R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Withers, Sir John James


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Potter, John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hopkinson, Austin
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.



Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Percy John
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Edwards, Charles


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)




George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James



Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, William
Price, Gabriel
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

CLAUSE 31.—(Co-ordination of services of board and amalgamated railway companies.)

Amendment made: In page 43, line 13, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the word "Act."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Pybus!

6.13 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Are you calling my Amendment in page 45, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (10)?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment fell with the Amendments that were moved to Clause 30. In addition to that, my impression is that if this Amendment were carried, it would leave out certain machinery which is necessary and would not substitute other machinery for it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the Amendment were carried, it would leave the matter to be determined by a joint committee. That will be the satisfactory method of determining the matter if it is left like that in the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I point out that the body to whom it would be left would consist of four persons representing one set of interests and four representing another, and there would be no machinery for deciding in case of an equal division.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that that puts it out of order, although it may be an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to move his Amendment I think that I must allow him to do so.

6.15 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 45, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (10).
The object of this Amendment is to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman some elucidation of the position as between the Railway Rates Tribunal and
the Railway and Canal Commissioners, because in this matter we are dealing with main line facilities. Sub-section (9) says:
any substantial alteration of those services or facilities or (b) the introduction of any new service or facility or (c) the undertaking of any extension or development necessitating additional capital expenditure shall be submitted to and determined by the Joint Committee.
"Those services or facilities" will normally come within the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, who will be able to order those facilities, if their jurisdiction is sought, upon the application of any person. It may well be that precisely the same facility will be sought from the two tribunals by different persons and there may be different decisions as to those facilities, one tribunal ordering them and another not ordering them. In such a case the amalgamated railway or other party which has to act upon those orders would be in the position of having to do two diametrically opposite things, and if it failed to do so it would be guilty of contempt of court. That seems to be an unsatisfactory way in which to leave things, almost more unsatisfactory than to leave it to the decision of a body on which four members are representing one side and four members the other, because they at least would have to decide negatively if they could not come to a decision or positively if they did come to a decision, but would not decide both ways at the same time. This is a difficulty we are anxious to have solved one way or another—in another place if it cannot be done now—so that this duplication of authority shall not persist.

6.17 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman prefaced his observations by saying that the main object of this Amendment was to enable me to make some observations regarding the exercise of powers between the Railway and Canal Commission and the Railway Rates Tribunal. Perhaps the best observation I can make is to read Clause 36 which says:
Any existing functions of or powers exercisable by the Railway and Canal Commission shall, in so far as they are exercisable by the rates tribunal by virtue of this Act, cease to be the functions of or powers exercisable by What Commission.
The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why? Because the only jurisdiction here is if the Joint Committee are unable to agree. Then the rates tribunal would have jurisdiction. But, in a matter of ordinary facilities, anyone who applies will go to the Railway and Canal Commission. They will not be excluded, because there will be no disagreement on the Joint Committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: So far as the main line services are concerned, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, as long as the Commission is in existence, will be exercised, but the Sub-section with which we are dealing covers, rather, questions connected with suburban traffic, which is the subject of an appeal provided for in the Bill. Really, we are back as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were inclined to think at one stage, at the question of whether the Railway Rates Tribunal is the proper body to settle the questions which may arise. We have already given that tribunal jurisdiction in connection with fares and facilities, and the case now is really a cumulative one, and, at any rate, one for making them the appropriate court of appeal from the joint committee which is set up under this Sub-section. The Bill as originally introduced provided that the Minister should be the body or, rather, the authority to deal with these questions in the event of disagreement. There was no proposal then that the power of appeal should be exercised by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. If the Minister and those who devised the Bill were of opinion that the Minister was the proper tribunal, obviously that excluded the Railway and Canal Commission, so it does not lie in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mouth now to say that the Railway and Canal Commission is the proper tribunal to sit as a court of appeal. We have simply preferred the Railway Rates Tribunal to the Minister. It is not a question of substituting the Railway Rates Tribunal
for the Commission. That is the question which the House has to consider, and I ask that this Sub-section should be retained as providing the only machinery for settling questions upon which the Joint Committee are not able to agree.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 34.—(Revision of fares of amalgamated railway companies.)

6.20 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 48, line 7, to leave out the words "in their opinion."
The object of deleting the words "in their opinion" is merely to make the wording of three Clauses uniform. It is really a question of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Power of board to borrow for capital purposes.)

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 49, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) the discharge of any liability imposed on or incurred by the board under section sixteen or section seventeen of this Act.
This Amendment is intended to remove a doubt which may exist with regard to borrowing powers of the board. It will enable the board to borrow as capital the money necessary to satisfy the payments in respect of purchase price or compensation payable to operators of public service vehicles as a result of the restriction of their operations under Clause 16. The Amendment is designed to clarify the position with regard to these borrowing powers. The two Amendments which follow are consequential upon this one.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 50, line 16, leave out from the word "section," to the word "exclusive," in line 20.

In line 21, leave out the words "paragraph (g)," and insert instead thereof the words "paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (h)."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 39.—(Issue of transport stock.)

Amendments made: In page 55, line 34, leave out the word "part," and insert instead thereof the word "parts."

In page 56, line 18, after "(b)," insert the words "and (c)."— [Mr. Pybus.]

6.23 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 57, line 33, to leave out from the word "respectively" to the first word "to," in line 35, and to insert instead thereof the words:
being holders in the aggregate of not less than five per cent. of the total amount of stock of that class then outstanding.
This is the first Amendment on the Order Paper which deals with the important financial question raised by some of my hon. Friends during the Committee stage. The finance of the Bill is an important part of its structure, and it was suggested that we ran a considerable risk in allowing holders of "C" stock of not less than £500,000 to apply to the High Court for the appointment of a receiver if there were a failure on each of two consecutive years to pay interest at the standard rate. The standard rate, for the earlier years at any rate, was 5 per cent., and it was said that owing to the depression through which, unhappily, we are passing, it was quite possible— indeed, I think some hon. Members went so far as to say it was quite likely—that the "C" stock would not earn its 5 per cent., and that therefore, at the end of two years, application would be made to the courts by a small group of dissatisfied stockholders for the appointment of a receiver, and that before the child was scarcely weaned it would be strangled. On that point we had an interesting and informal discussion, and it was suggested, I think by an hon. Member for one of the divisions of St. Pancras, that the standard rate should be reduced to 3 per cent. for the first two or three years, should then be 4 per cent. and then 5 per cent., and I think it was to rise to 7 per cent., as the maximum which could be paid, instead of 6 per cent. It was also suggested that action by a larger body of stockholders should be required to enable an application to be made to the courts for the appointment of a receiver.
This last point we are endeavouring to meet. We are providing, both in the case of "B" stock and in the case of "C," not merely that there must be an aggregate nominal value of £500,000 worth of stock represented, but there must be a number of holders who represent in the aggregate not less than 5 per cent. of the total amount of that stock at that time outstanding. In the case of "C" stock that would mean that stock
holders to the extent of £1,000,000 must be brought together before an application can be made to the courts for the appointment of a receiver. There still remains the formidable question as to the nature of the default upon which such an application can be made and acceded to by the court. It is proposed that instead of a default in payment of interest for two consecutive years justifying an application it must be default in respect of three consecutive years, and the first of the consecutive years is to be not earlier than the third year after the appointed day. Putting that necessarily complicated phraseology into simple words, it means that the undertaking will have a clear run of five years before there is any possibility of an application to the court for the appointment of a receiver. If it should so unfortunately happen that this undertaking, managed by the Transport Board, is not able to earn the standard rate of interest on its "C" stock, which one may compare to the ordinary stock, at the end of five years, I should think it would then be perfectly proper for the persons interested to apply to the courts, and possibly for the Government of the day to reconsider the whole undertaking and its position. Though I know so little about these matters that I cannot engage in any prophecy, I hope and trust that that possibility will never be realised; but I hope and believe, also, that the proposal we are now making will satisfy the doubts which were raised by an hon. Member for St. Pancras and, I think, by an hon. Member for Paddington. It will, as I say, give the Transport Board a breathing space of substantial length to enable them to exist until times which may be happier than the last year or two have been, so that the undertaking may earn a standard rate of interest.
We are also proposing to the House for its acceptance another safeguard which will be found in a subsequent Amendment in page 58, line 9. The Amendment provides, in short, for the ascertainment of the wishes of the stockholders as a whole, so as to see whether the 5 per cent. who are making the application really represent both the interests and the wishes of their fellow-stockholders. I think that that is a provision of substantial value to protect the undertaking from exploitation, or
rather to prevent its exploitation for their own private interests by some dissatisfied group of financiers, who might wish to manipulate the market for some reason of their own. Although £1,000,000 worth of stockholders, or 5 per cent. of the whole may, so to speak, start the ball rolling, it may be arrested if the rest of the stockholders, or a majority of the rest of the stockholders, are satisfied that it is undesirable, having regard to all the circumstances, to ask the court to intervene.
I hope that we have succeeded in devising a fair balance between the interests of the stockholders and the interests of the public who are represented in this Transport Board undertaking. I made another suggestion on the spur of the moment during the Committee stage, that the standard rate of interest should be reduced, at any rate so far as, in the case of default, to justify application for the appointment of a receiver. That proposal was regarded as indicating a reasonable frame of mind on the part of the Government, but it was not a proposal which, upon examination, appeared to be so satisfactory as those which we now lay before the House. We have consulted the persons concerned, and we have not found it necessary to reopen the whole of the agreement so as to call together large classes of the stockholders concerned. These are proposals which are satisfactory, so far as we know, to all parties, and I hope that the House will feel now that the future of this undertaking is properly safeguarded, and that, at the same time, stockholders have all reasonable protection for the money that they invest in the undertaking.

6.33 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The House will be grateful to the learned Attorney-General for the explanation which he has given. The Amendments, which I have no doubt the House will accept, do something to improve the Bill. They appear to give the transport authority which is to be established under the Bill five years' respite from the fatal consequences of the financial difficulties with which they are liable to be called upon to deal. The learned Attorney-General used the expression "the public are
represented." I can understand that the shareholders are represented in regard to the Amendments, but the interest of the public in the Amendments must be rather remote. The shareholders, of course, are concerned, but some of us are mainly interested in the effect which the Amendments are likely to have upon the public.
As regards the public, what I have described as a five years' respite is likely to be an advantage. The board might not be compelled, in those circumstances, to raise fares and curtail facilities quite so soon as they would otherwise be if these Amendments had not been introduced. I feel bound to express some regret that the Amendment as originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) to reduce the standard rate was not adopted by the Government, but if we cannot have that, we are certainly better off with this compromise than without it. In the circumstances, I desire to express my thanks personally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the Amendment and for his explanation of it.

6.35 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: I would like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting so much of the substance of the Amendment that I moved in the Committee stage of the Bill. It has been made quite clear to me that the standard rate could not be very easily altered without reopening all the negotiations which have already taken place between the Ministry and the various interests, which are being taken over by the board. Consequently, I think that the Minister has perhaps devised the best compromise possible, and although I do not think that the danger of a too rigid finance has been entirely obviated, I would very much like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has done.

6.36 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I want to make one remark, and that is that the very suggestion of the possibility of a receiver coming into and running this essential public service is certainly alarming. I believe that the finances of the concern are sound. I have never doubted that a monopoly of this character, after all competition has been removed, must pay in the long run. Hon. Members will have
received a memorandum, from a Member of this House—the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson). I am surprised that he is not in his place. When a paper is circulated to Members during the passage of a Bill attempting to show that £1,000,000 is involved, I think that the hon. Member responsible should be in his place to challenge the finances of the undertaking. He says:
Taking a conservative view, in the first year's working there will be a deficit which may exceed £1,000,000,
and then he sets out the reasons. I gather that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has not seen this peculiar document.

Sir S. CRIPPS: No.

Sir P. HARRIS: Then I am specially favoured.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It may be because I am not concerned, and because I do not take a conservative view.

Sir P. HARRIS: Well, this document may be rather a bastard, but still the hon. and learned Member has something to do with it. He cannot disown entirely that he had something to do with its inspiration. He graced the late Government with his presence—but that is only by the way. When a statement of this kind is circulated to hon. Members, the Member who is responsible should be in his place to justify it. If there is any justification for it, it is certainly alarming to find that in five years' time the finances of this undertaking may be such that a receiver should be appointed. Now that we have decided to have a form of public authority, it should not be subject to this kind of financial operation. A service of this character is vital and essential to the travelling public, and London could not exist without cheap, efficient and a live service. It should not be necessary to put in a Clause of this character. It is one of the weaknesses of this Bill that its finances are complicated, and are mixed up with forms of company finance. It would have been wiser and more advisable to have done the thing on the right lines, and to have made the board a real public authority, with proper stock raised directly from the public on the same lines as a public authority.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is the hon. Baronet anticipating the Third Beading?

Sir P. HARRIS: All that I was trying to say was that I do not like this kind of finance. I am very sorry that the learned Attorney-General has told us that there is still a risk, although it may be very remote, that some day a receiver may come into the affairs of this great authority which is to be responsible for the travelling facilities of the people of London.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 58, line 1, leave out from the word "Stock," to the first word "to," in line 3, and insert instead thereof the words:
being holders in the aggregate of not less than five per cent. of the total amount of 'C' stock then outstanding.

In line 7, leave out the word "two," and insert instead thereof the word "three."

In line 8, after the word "years," insert the words:
of which the first shall be not earlier than the third year after the appointed day.

In line 9, at the end, insert the words:
Where under any regulations made under this section any application is made to the Court for the appointment of a receiver or receiver and manager, the board in such manner as may be prescribed by such regulations shall convene meetings of the holders of each class of transport stock for the purpose of ascertaining and informing the Court whether such holders desire to support or to oppose the application; and the Court, after considering any resolutions passed at any such meeting as aforesaid and hearing any holders of transport stock desiring to be heard in opposition to or in support of the application may, if it thinks fit, appoint a receiver or a receiver and manager, as the case may be, on such terms as it may think fit."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Reserve Fund.)

6.43 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 60, line 8, to leave out the word "Traffic," and to insert instead thereof the words "Passenger Transport."
This Amendment is consequential upon the substitution in Clause 3 of the words "London Passenger Transport area" for the words "London Traffic the area within which the board will be
responsible for the transport system. It is purely a verbal alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 60, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
( ) Any sum transferred from the reserve fund for the purpose of meeting any charge which by this Act is to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board shall be deemed to form part of the revenues of the board applicable to defraying that charge.
This is merely a drafting Amendment in order to make it quite clear that any sum transferred from the Reserve Fund in order to defray charges which by the Act are to be paid out of revenue shall be deemed to form part of the revenues applicable to the payment of those charges. I hope that the Amendment does effect its purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Application of revenues of board.)

6.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 63, line 14, to leave out from the word "of," to the word "be," in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words:
paying interest on the 'C' stock at the standard rate.
This is part and parcel of the financial provisions which I explained a few minutes ago. The words which the Amendment proposes to leave out are:
defraying the charge mentioned in paragraph (f) of Sub-section (1).
If these words were read with paragraph (f) of Sub-section (1), they would apply, as in that paragraph, to
interest for that year on the 'C' stock at the standard rate.
Sub-section (3), however, refers to the interest for all previous years, and, therefore, we propose this Amendment, which will make it plain that we are not only dealing with one particular year, but are dealing with all years.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Special provisions with respect to Metropolitan Traffic Area.)

Amendments made: In page 66, line 14, leave out the word "vehicle," and insert instead thereof the word "vehicles."

In page 67, line 8, leave out the word "and."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 53.—(S. 35 of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43, not to apply to vehicles owned by board.)

6.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment carries out a pledge which was given during the Committee stage. Sections 35 and 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, impose obligations to provide against liability in respect of third party risks, either by a policy of insurance or by underwriting, involving the giving of security as defined by Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act, and depositing the sum of £15,000 with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court. The removal of this Clause from the Bill really puts the board in the same position as any other persons who own motor vehicles. Under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, insurers are Subject to a further liability to pay to a hospital which has given treatment to any person injured by their vehicles reasonable expenses up to the sum of £25. I hope that the elimination of the Clause will give satisfaction to hon. Members.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Provisions as to routes for road services within special area.)

Amendment made: In page 71, line 40, leave out the word "and."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 63.—(Restriction on number of passenger vehicles using certain streets.)

6.51 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 75, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:
Before any such inquiry is held the Advisory Committee shall give notice of the date and place at which the inquiry will be held, and of the matters to be dealt with at the inquiry.
This Amendment is designed to meet a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) during the Committee stage. It requires the Advisory Committee to give due notice of any public inquiry which it proposes to hold, and of the matters to be dealt with at the inquiry.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 64.—(Power to make regulations with respect to road traffic generally in London Traffic Area.)

Amendment made: In page 77, line 10, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 68.—(Constitution of Negotiating Committee and Wages Board.)

6.53 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 78, line 15, to leave out the words "Co-operative Union," and to insert instead thereof the words "County Councils Association."
In moving this Amendment, I should like, if I may, to refer also to the next Amendment—In page 78, line 16, to leave out the words, "Association of British Chambers of Commerce," and to insert instead thereof the words "London County Council." The purpose of these two Amendments is, as I would like to put it, to improve the balance and constitution of the Wages Board by introducing into it an element representative of the third party in the case. The purpose of the Wages Board is to give due representation to employers and employed, and I think I am right in saying that the wording introduced into the Bill is the common form which applies in similar cases, such as that of the National Railway Wages Board applicable to the main line railways of the United Kingdom. The Transport Board, which has been set up as a monopoly body under this Bill, is different from an ordinary railway organisation. It includes, not only railways, but surface transport, and, in view of the new Clause which we have now introduced, it may also cover transport, in certain respects, by water. Consequently, the one body has to deal with different problems from those dealt with by the other body.
The purpose of my Amendments is to introduce into the consideration of these questions some regard for the third party in the case, namely, to give representation to the interests of the travelling public. They do not seek to alter the balance as between employers and employed. I have suggested two bodies representative of local authorities—the London County Council so far as the county council's area is concerned, and for the large area outside, the County Councils Association. My purpose would
be equally met if any other bodies as effective and as familiar with the interests of the population of those areas could be suggested, but, in default, I have put down the names of these two authorities, in order that the interests of the population of nearly 9,000,000 in those areas may be represented when these questions come forward for consideration. The population, as passengers, are, of course, closely concerned with the deliberations under the Bill. If costs go up, the transport authority, having regard to the provisions of Clause 3 (4), will have to raise fares in order to make the organisation pay. From that point of view the public as passengers are concerned with the deliberations of a body of this kind, and I submit that the matter should not be left exclusively to the deliberations of a body representative solely of employers and employed, without some representation of, and consideration for, the interests of the travelling public.

Sir WILLIAM RAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We are dealing in this Clause with the conciliation machinery for settling disputes, which, as my hon. Friend has said, are likely chiefly to arise among the railway employés of the Transport Board. One of the features of all successful conciliation machinery has been that it has been established with the consent and good will of the persons whose interests are submitted to it. It would be a great mistake if we were to set up machinery which had not been devised with the assent of the railway employés who would be affected by it. The machinery in the Bill has been devised with such consent of the parties concerned. The railway trade unions, who represent the interests of, perhaps, the majority of the men, have agreed to the proposals in the Bill. That is the first reason which disinclines me to accept my hon. Friend's Amendments. If we were to alter the nature of the conciliation board without the consent of the men concerned, we should run a, very grave risk of defeating the whole object of this provision.
Another reason why I feel unable to accept the Amendments is that they would have the effect of altering the constitution of the conciliation board in such a way as to make it radically different
from that which deals with the interests of the men employed on those parts of the main-line railways other than the part affected by this Bill. It would be Very undesirable to have two bodies, differently composed, working side by side in dealing with the same interests and questions affecting very much the same classes of men. At present the conditions of railwaymen employed by the Amalgamated Railway Companies are dealt with by a tribunal constituted, broadly speaking, on the same lines as this authority.
Moreover, on the merits of the Amendments, I am afraid I cannot see any adequate reason for putting upon this board representatives of bodies which are not directly concerned with the questions to be decided by the board. The County Councils Association and the London County Council may be representative of local interests on questions of facilities and fares, with which we have already dealt; but they can hardly be said to be interested in the questions that will have to be decided by this Wages Board. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to accept these Amendments, and must ask the House to refuse them I cannot quite see why my hon. Friend prefers the County Councils Association to the Co-operative Union in this connection. If hon. Members will look at paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause, they will see that four other persons are to be appointed, two of them representing the trade unions and the Co-operative Union respectively, and two representing the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations respectively. If the County Councils Association were to be substituted for the Co-operative Union, that would manifestly disturb the balance of that part of the representation on this Wages Board. There is no question, about cooperative unions or co-operative societies here. We need not, therefore, embarrass ourselves by prejudice one way or the other. The whole question is whether this is the Wages Board which is most likely to carry out the happy work of conciliation. It is devised as happily as may be, and I prefer the provisions of the Bill to what is proposed by my hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 71.—(Application of Part VI.)

7.1 p.m.

Sir W. RAY: I beg to move, page 79, line 16, to leave out the first word "The," and to insert instead thereof the words:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the.
Probably the House will remember that in Committee I moved certain Amendments to the Bill which the Attorney-General promised to deal with during the Recess, and to bring up on the Report stage. Negotiations have been on foot, and the result has been the Amendments standing on the Order Paper in my name. It is a change which, I believe, the Government are prepared to accept. I propose in a further Amendment, to add two paragraphs to the Clause. Paragraph (a) deals with a special class, because I believe the conditions of the Bill cannot reasonably be brought into it, and necessitates an addition of this kind. That will refer, chiefly, to people in receipt of salaries of over £360 a year. The other portion of the Amendment deals with those members of the staff of the London County Council, of whom 600 will be transferred, and of whom 545 are members of the County Council Staff Association. Their difficulties in regard to service conditions, and so on, are dealt with by a joint committee of the council and the staff. Without this provision, these men would Rave to join one of the trade unions, in order to get representation on these boards, and so far members of the administrative staff have felt it is not consonant with their office to join a trade union in order to get any redress for the grievances from which they suffer. I do not think it is necessary for me to add any more as I understand the Minister is prepared to deal sympathetically with the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has this Amendment been seconded?

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.4 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel HEADLAM: The Government are prepared to accept these Amendments. They are the fruit of an agreement between the various parties concerned, and they have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for Rich-
mond (Sir W. Ray) has told the Committee. I think the acceptance of the Amendments will lead to peace and happiness.

7.5 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand from what the hon. Member has just said that he regards this matter as an agreed one. I think he is wrong. This has not been agreed among the parties concerned. The original Clauses in the Bill, after discussion in Committee, were agreed with the unions and other bodies concerned. That was a Parliamentary arrangement which is now being departed from. At the time this matter was discussed in Committee I asked the Attorney-General whether it would be discussed with the trade unions. He told me that it would be, and it has been. But it has not been agreed with the trade unions by any means. I am surprised the hon. Member should tell the House that the trade unions have agreed.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I did not say that the trade unions accepted. I said that the parties concerned were mainly representatives of the London County Council.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. and gallant Member must not say that. Everybody knows that these Clauses were agreed with the trade unions originally. We protested against their alteration and the Attorney-General said that if any question of alteration was undertaken the unions would be consulted, as they were. They naturally thought that before anything was brought up to the House it would be something agreed after consultation. I am anxious that the House should not take it that this has been agreed. I understand that what the hon. Member means is that 540 of the London County Council Staff Association have authorised this Amendment, and agreed to it. Other persons vitally interested in these Clauses have not agreed. If the Government have made up their mind to accept, and have given an undertaking to someone else to accept, it is no use our protesting. I desire, however, to put on record that this is by no means an agreement. There was originally a bargain with the trade unions. They have not been able to agree, and the Government have accepted the other point of view.

7.9 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I remember the discussion in Committee. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) will remember that I gave assurances that I would endeavour to meet what I thought was the fair case of those servants of the London County Council. I also said that the trade unions would be consulted. It is perhaps putting it a little too high to say that they have agreed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport thinks he put it a little too high. I may put it in an agreed aspect that, although the railway trade unions were consulted, they dissented or gave a very grudging assent to it—a sort of reluctant acquiescence in something they had no power to prevent. I do not want it to be supposed for a moment that the Government have gone back on any undertaking which was given. We do recognise that the trade unions concerned are not likely to be pleased with what has been done. I think that on reflection they will realise that it would not have been any great assistance to them to have a body of dissatisfied persons, and that the arrangement made may, in course of time, lead the people concerned, or their descendants to cooperate with other people in their unions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 79, line 20, after the word "being," insert the words:
(a) persons who, in accordance with the classification for the time being in force, are comprised within the special class mentioned in the national agreements referred to in the Seventh Schedule to the Railways Act, 1921, or who, if they had been engaged on or in connection with any railway of the board to which any of those agreements applies, would have been so comprised therein; or
(b).

In line 27, at the end, insert the words:
(2) The committee, in making schemes under the last preceding section, shall not include in those schemes any persons who immediately before they became officers or servants of the board were members of the London County Council Staff Association, so long as not less than one hundred of such persons as aforesaid, being officers or servants of the board, express their desire to be excluded from those schemes."—[Sir W. Ray.]

CLAUSE 73.—(Transfer and Compensation Rights of Officers and Servants solely or mainly occupied in scheduled undertakings.)

7.11 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 82, line 6, after the word "perform," to insert the words:
or required to perform duties at some place which is outside the area within which he was as such officer or servant as aforesaid required to perform any duties, and which is so remote from that area as to involve the transfer of his place of residence.
I desire to move the Amendment although it stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Denville) and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. Williams). It seems to the Labour party to be an excellent Amendment. It makes provision for compensation in the case of servants who are required, as a result of the amalgamation, to perform services far distant from their homes—services which they cannot perform without moving their households and are, therefore, put to the expense, by reason of the Bill, of finding new homes. It is a case we have certainly overlooked. Its origin would not necessarily lead us to a sympathetic consideration of it, but when we see a good thing on the Order Paper we look to see how we can assist its passage.

7.13 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When I find on the Order Paper an Amendment in the names of my two hon. Friends actually moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) I am suspicious. I should not expect oil and vinegar to mix, and I cannot understand how my hon. Friends put down an Amendment such as this. The Bill provides that compensation shall be given to people who are deprived of their positions in consequence of this amalgamation, or are justified in resigning their posts because they are asked

to undertake some duty different from that which they formerly performed. I should have thought that that was a liberal piece of legislation. It has been embodied in similar Acts and, perhaps, is consecrated. It is very liberal towards the people concerned. The proposal is that if a man on the West side of London, five or six miles out, is asked to move his home to the East side he is to be entitled to sit on the doorstep and claim compensation. I have sometimes thought that one of our difficulties at the present time is the immobility of labour. In former generations people used to go out into the world and seek their fortunes. It is an immobility which is affecting all classes of the community. They are all too much inclined to think they are going to have everything brought to them mixed up ready to swallow, instead of going out and seeking their fortune.

I am not prepared to accept an Amendment which allows a man who is asked to perform a duty in a different part of the Metropolis, in the north instead of the south, to say that he is entitled to resign his position and live on the fruits of the compensation. It is a novel proposal. No employé of any big trading corporation in this country is immune from the possibility of having to move hither or thither just as his employer lays down. He is a lucky fellow if he is not told to go from London to Singapore and move his home there. These people are being asked to move, say, from Ealing to Croydon, and the proposal is, if they are asked to undertake anything so dreadful, that they should be entitled to compensation. It would be placing a wholly unfair burden upon the Transport Board if the Amendment were accepted, and I hope that the House will do nothing of the kind.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 234.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Patrick, Colin M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Peat, Charles U.


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Percy, Lord Eustace


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Petherick, M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Potter, John


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grimston, R. V.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pybus, Percy John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Harris, Sir Percy
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hartland, George A.
Ray, Sir William


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rea, Walter Russell


Blinded, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Borodale, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Remer, John R.


Boulton, W. W.
Hopkinson, Austin
Robinson, John Roland


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horobin, Ian M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bracken, Brendan
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Brown, Brig.-G en. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Buchan, John
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burnett, John George
Janner, Barnett
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Ker, J. Campbell
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Slater, John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Carver, Major William H.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Cassels, James Dale
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Castlereagh, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred
Soper, Richard


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Southby, Commander Archibald St. J.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Levy, Thomas
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Clarke, Frank
Lewis, Oswald
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westmorland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Llewellin, Major John J.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Storey, Samuel


Conant, R. J. E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooper, A. Duff
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Patrick)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
McKeag, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sutcliffe, Harold


Crossley, A. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Dickie, John P.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duckworth, George A. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunglass, Lord
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Eastwood, John Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wells, Sydney Richard


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Cot. J. T. C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Elmley, Viscount
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morrison, William Shepherd
Withers, Sir John James


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, Patrick
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
North, Captain Edward T.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.

7.23 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 82, line 8, to leave out
from the word "servant," to the word "suffers," in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the word "who."

This and the two following Amendments are to make plain that the loss for which compensation is to be paid must be a loss in consequence of the passing of the Act. The Amendments are on all fours with the provisions already contained in the Local Government Act, 1929.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 82, line 11, after the word "Act," insert the words:
by reason of such abolition or relinquishment of his office or post or otherwise.

In line 36, after the word "deemed," insert the words:
for the purposes of the last preceding subsection."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 82, line 42, to leave out the words "part of the remuneration or emoluments," and to insert instead thereof the word "sum."
This and the next two Amendments are in order to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), who was afraid that sums which were paid to a man for loss of office might in some way get mixed up with the sums paid to the concern, in which he was a managing director and held a share interest, in consequence of the transfer of the undertaking. These are Amendments in order to make it plain that a careful distinction has been drawn between the two classes of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 83, line 1, after the word "servant," insert the words:
by reason of any financial interest held by him in the undertaking or part of the undertaking (whether as a partner, shareholder or otherwise).

In page 83, line 3, leave out the words "part of the remuneration or emoluments, "and insert the word" sum."— [The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 80.—(Superanuation funds, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 92, line 28, after the second word "the," insert the word "three."

In line 29, leave out the word "Subsection," and insert instead thereof the word "Sub-sections."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 81.—(Exemption from Stamp Duties.)

Amendments made: In page 96, line 2, after the word "or," insert the word "on."

In line 27, after the second word "stock," insert the words:
or in respect of the trust deed constituting and securing such new Assented stock." —[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 82.—(Maintenance of transferred undertakings until appointed day.)

Amendment made: In page 100, line 2, after the word "Limited," insert the words:
and in the case of the Tramways (M.E.T.) Omnibus Company, Limited."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 87.—(Dissolution of transferred companies.)

Amendment made: In page 103, line 19, after the word "agreement," insert the word "as."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 88.—(Dissolution of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London, Limited, and the London and Suburban Traction Company, Limited.)

Amendments made: In page 106, line 10, after the word "Stock)," insert the words "in this Section referred to as 'new assented stock.' "

In line 20, leave out the word "shall."

In line 23, leave out the word "said."

In page 107, line 34, leave out from the word "any," to the word "is," in line 36, and insert instead thereof the words "new assented stock."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 90.—(Protection for holders of Debenture Stock of London United Tramways Limited.)

Amendments made: In page 116, line 4, leave out the words "those holders," and insert instead thereof the words:
such persons as may be certified by the company to be holders of existing debenture stock at the appointed day.

In line 5, after the word "existing," insert the word "debenture."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 94.—(Protection for Great Western Railway Company.)

Amendment made: In page 120, line 17, leave out the words "of Transport."— [Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 95.—(Protection for London Midland and Scottish Railway Company.)

Amendment made: In page 120, line 24, after the word "in," insert the word "the."— [Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 99.—(Sale of part of undertaking to Southern Railway Company.)

Amendment made: In page 127, line 29, leave out the word "Company."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 100.—(Application to board of 33 and 34 Vict. c. 78.)

Amendment made: In page 128, line 12, leave out the word "Tramway," and insert instead thereof the word "Tramways."— [Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 106.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 131, line 20, after the word "or," insert the words "due and."—[Mr. Pybus.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Part V. The Independent Undertakings.)

Amendments made: In page 136, line 27, leave out the word "Omnibus," and insert instead thereof the word "Bus."

In page 137, leave out lines 15 and 16. —[Mr. Pybus.]

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask why Mr. Maxton should be left out of this Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is too late.
Further Amendment made: In page 137, line 35, leave out the word "Company." —[Mr. Pybus.]

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Issue of Transport stock to the Metropolitan Railway Company and Distribution of that stock.)

Amendment made: In page 144, line 22, col. 2, leave out "B," and insert instead thereof the words, "5 per cent., 'B'."—[Mr. Pybus.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Distribution of Transport Stock issued as consideration for transfer of undertakings to the board and the winding up of certain companies whose undertakings are transferred.)

7.35 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 145, line 28, to leave out the word
"Second," and to insert instead thereof the word "Third."

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May we ask if the Minister is disposed to make any explanation in regard to this series of Amendments? It is somewhat difficult to obtain an explanation owing to the rapid rate at which you are getting through the Amendments?

Mr. PYBUS: I was about to make an observation in regard to Mr. Maxton, and also as to why these Amendments are justified. I was going to observe with regard to Mr. Maxton—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have passed that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 145, line 37, leave out the word "First," and insert instead thereof the word "Second."

In page 146, line 6, leave out the word "voluntarily," and insert instead thereof the word "voluntary."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 146, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
neither shall the board be entitled to participate in such distribution in respect of those preference Shares.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask what this Amendment means? I am sure that the Minister is dying to make an explanation. Why should not the board participate?

Mr. PYBUS: That is an Amendment with reference to a financial transaction. The fourth paragraph of the Fifth Schedule provides that the London General Omnibus Company shall not by virtue of its holdings of preference shares of the Tramways (M.E.T.) Omnibus Company participate in the distribution of the transport stock issued to that company, or in the distribution of assets on winding-up. This is due to the fact that the London General Omnibus Company will be paid for its holding by the issue of transport stock direct. The board will by virtue of the transfer of the London General Omnibus Company become the owners of the Tramways (M.E.T.) Omnibus Company's preference shares, and the Amendment is necessary to
prevent any part of the consideration or final distribution of assets flowing back to the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 147, line 31, leave out the word "transfer," and insert instead thereof the words "registers or."

In line 32, leave out the word "transfer," and insert instead thereof the words "registers or."

In page 148, line 14, after the word "purpose," insert the words "whether held before or after the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Pybus.]

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions which are to form the basis of the pooling scheme.)

Amendment made: In page 154, line 22, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."—(Mr. Pybus.)

FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to determination of compensation payable to officers and servants.)

7.38 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 164, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) In the case of an officer or servant other than an officer or servant of a local authority or of an underground undertaking, the board or the arbitrator in computing the length of his service for the purpose of the award of compensation shall take into account all his service after he has attained the age of 18 years in any undertaking specified in the Second Schedule of this Act.
This is a manuscript Amendment of which I have given the Attorney-General a copy. Paragraph 6 deals with the case of an officer or servant of an underground undertaking, while paragraph 5 deals with an officer or servant of a local authority. As far as officers and servants of underground undertakings are concerned, the whole of their period of service counts, in whichever branch or subsidiary that service may have been given. I understand that in a number of cases there have been changes in the personnel of the other companies included in the Second Schedule, where people have turned over from one occupation to the other but all the time have been in the service of one or other of those com-
panies. Some of the cases have been brought about by merger and otherwise. We wish to safeguard the position of the men. The House will remember that in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, which I think was an Act which went through during the Conservative administration, there was a provision of the same sort as that we are here proposing. The Fourth Schedule of that Act says:
In computing the period of service of any officer, service under any authorised undertakers shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertaker in whose employment he is at the time when the loss or relinquishment of employment occurs.
Therefore, the principle was acknowledged, that where you are bringing about an amalgamation of this sort you should take into account the service of a man in any of the companies that you are amalgamating for the purpose of qualifying him for compensation. I would ask the Attorney-General either to accept this Amendment or to have the point covered by some suitable Amendment in another place, because it seems to be in accordance with precedent and it seems to be a fair and proper thing to insert in the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member was good enough to give me a copy of the Amendment, but I have not had an opportunity of considering it in detail. He read an extract from the Electricity (Supply) Act, but I aim not sure whether in the setting in which that provision appears it would lead to precisely the same result as the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member is moving. I am perfectly sympathetic to the proposal that a man who has had continuity of service shall not suffer merely from the fact that there has been a change in the constitution of the undertaking that employed him, and that because he is passed from one undertaking to another, because of the alteration in the structure, he ought not to be penalised. On the other hand, I am not sure it is right that a man who, say, for two years, when perhaps he was 20 years of age, was employed by one particular undertaking, and then for some fault of his own lost his employment and became the servant of another undertaking after many years, should be entitled to have the first two years computed in estimating
his rate of compensation. If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to consider the facts and look at the analogous Acts and consider the best form in which provision might be made for continuity of service, I think we shall be able to give effect to the spirit of his Amendment, although I am not at the moment able to accept the form of it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

TITLE.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out the words "the London Traffic Area," and to insert instead thereof the words:
an area to be known as the London Passenger Transport Area which shall comprise certain portions of the London Traffic Area and of the districts adjacent thereto.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to point out very clearly that the Bill has been so amended and is so different from its original form that we are now being asked to amend the actual Title of the Bill, because we are going far outside the original London traffic area. No definition has ever been made, as far as I understand, by the Government, as to how far this may extend. The result of the Amendments mean that the traffic area has been extended almost limitlessly. At present you have the London traffic area circle, and certain parts where it goes outside, but by making an amendment in the Title of the Bill you are deliberately encouraging the board to try to get further outside than they are now. The Government are so reluctant to explain the position that we have not had a word from them in support of this Amendment.

Mr. PYBUS: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no reluctance to explain the Amendment. The point simply is this. When the Bill was first introduced it provided for the establishment of a board to be charged with the provision of passenger transport facilities for the London traffic area. The area was changed, actually it was reduced, in Committee, and the introduction of a newly defined area called the London Passenger Transport Area as the sphere
of the operations of the board necessitates the alteration in the Title of the Bill. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept the explanation. May I ask what is the actual limit of the outside area? How farther outside can they go?

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.48 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has already received a Second Reading in this House. On that occasion it was passed without discussion, but subsequently, on Committee stage, a legal point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) which led to some Debate. The hour was late and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary was unwilling to detain Members on that particular occasion. The Bill was there fore dropped for the time being. It has now been reintroduced in another place, where it has been thoroughly discussed by the high legal authorities who dignify that assembly and after a very careful scrutiny it is once more brought before the House of Commons unaltered and unamended. Some of the difficulties which arose in Committee on the last occasion were perhaps due to the fact that no discussion or explanation had taken place on Second Reading and hon. Members were not clear as to the purpose of the Bill. For that reason it may be well to explain the purpose of this short Bill.
The main reason for the Measure is the fact that the Statute of Westminster has altered the relations between Great Britain and her Dominions. There are rare occasions when members of the British Forces of this country find themselves in our Dominions, and there are occasions, equally rare, when Dominion Forces come to this country. In peace
times these occasions are very rare, but as things exist to-day British Forces in the Dominions and Dominion Forces in this country have no legal sanction for the maintenance of discipline. In the past, when British Forces have been in the Dominions, the Army Annual Act has continued to control discipline in the same way as when they are in Great Britain. The same has been the case when Dominion Forces have been in this country. The Statute of Westminster has altered all that and the Army Annual Act has now no authority in the Dominions and, similarly, Dominion Forces in this country have no legal sanction for the protection of their discipline in this country. This difficulty was foreseen when the Statute of Westminster was passed, and it was provided by agreement between His Majesty's Ministers and Dominion Ministers that the necessary legislation should be passed through the respective legislatures in order to make the situation satisfactory.
All that the Bill does is to give to the Forces of the Dominions when they are in this country exactly the same position as they would have if they were still in their own Dominions. The Bill affects nobody except British subjects, British soldiers, who are members of Dominion Forces, and it affects them only when they are in this country. It assures to them exactly the same position as though they were at home. It is understood that the same legislation will be passed through the Dominion Parliaments, so that British soldiers in the Dominions shall have the same status as though they were at home and governed by the Army Annual Act. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion as to the necessity for a Measure of this kind. During the War, when American troops were here, legislation of this kind was passed under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it worked satisfactorily.
The only difficulty raised is the point that we are depriving the Dominion soldier of recourse to our civil courts. That is true; but they have still the right to appeal to their own courts, the ordinary civil right which soldiers have in this country when they join the Forces. The difficulty of making the change suggested in this Bill, to give the soldier the right of appeal to the civil courts
in this country, is that it would go against the whole spirit of the Statute of Westminster to allow our civil courts to interfere with the discipline of Dominion troops, and if similar legislation was introduced in the Dominions it would obviously give great concern to our military authorities if they thought that our troops in the Dominions could appeal to the Dominions civil courts against a decision of the military authorities. That is one great objection. The other is that a Bill on these lines has already passed through the South African Parliament on the understanding that we are going to pass this Bill through this Parliament. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that the Bill should now receive a Second Reading.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The Financial Secretary has skated very lightly over the objections raised, not only in another place, but in the Press against certain parts of this Bill. He has told us that it has been discussed by well-known legal authorities in another place and passed, but he has not told us that the great legal authorities in another place condemned the Bill and strongly objected to its provisions. He also told us that Dominion soldiers in this country under this Bill would be in exactly the same position as when they were at home, but he forgot to say that when they are in their own Dominions they can appeal for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which they cannot do when they are in this country, because a writ of Habeas Corpus in a Dominion court would not run in this country. Why we are objecting to the Bill is because Subsection (3) of Clause 1 takes away from Dominion soldiers the protection of Habeas Corpus, which they enjoy at the present time.
A British soldier is under the Army Act, and subject to its provisions. The Army Act lays down in great detail the regulations by which discipline shall be maintained. It defines the constitution of the court and says what punishments can be inflicted for certain offences. If a soldier is condemned before one of these courts he can only appeal to a superior military authority, but if the court is improperly constituted, or has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has inflicted any punishment which it is not allowed to inflict under the Army Act, then a writ for
Habeas Corpus can be applied for and the soldier can, appeal to the civil court. Although he is a soldier he serves under an Act of Parliament and has not been deprived of his rights as a citizen. This is an important point. Many years ago there was an incident of a soldier who was sentenced to be shot. A few hours before the execution was to take place a writ of Habeas Corpus was applied for, but the Provost Marshal refused to recognise the writ and said that he only recognised the orders of his superior officer. The Court of King's Bench thereupon issued an order for the arrest not only of the Provost Marshal, but of his superior officer as well. They were arrested and brought before the Court.
This right is not only possessed by a soldier and by British citizens, it is possessed by everybody who dwells in this country even if he has only been here an hour. It is possessed by foreigners, and aliens, and by fugitives from justice from foreign countries. Even the foreigner who has been arrested under an extradition order can appeal for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and if the civil courts are not satisfied that an extradition order should be granted they can make an order for his release. Anybody in this country, foreigners, members of the Dominions or English citizens, in the Army or not, have this right to appeal for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and now, for the first time, it is to be taken away from people who happen to be members of the Dominion Forces. That is the great objection we have to this Bill. Consider what might happen. Suppose we had Dominion soldiers over here in camp side by side with British soldiers. A Dominion soldier might be accused of an offence committed in company with a British soldier, and both might be unjustly condemned. The British soldier could be released by an appeal to the civil court, but the Dominion soldier would have to remain in custody. That is a position which cannot be justified. The Statute of Habeas Corpus is not an unimportant Measure. It is far more important than the obsolete Acts of Edward III or King Canute, from which the present Government appear to derive their inspiration. It is the key-pin of English liberty. It is the most important Statute we possess. In the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" it is described in these words:
It declares no principles, and knows no rights, but is for practical purposes worth one hundred Articles guaranteeing constitutional liberty.
This National Government apparently have no regard for constitutional principles, and are rather more keen on putting persons in prison under musty Acts rather than in safeguarding the liberties which our forefathers wrung from the reluctant hands of Scottish kings. I feel that the spirit of this House is far greater than its Members, collectively or individually. The House of Commons is permanent, we are evanescent. This House throughout all our history, irrespective of party, has shown itself as the defender and guardian of British liberties. That spirit is greater than party. There can be no party feeling about a question of this sort. No party principle is involved. It is a question of British freedom and the precious right of Habeas Corpus. I hope the House of Commons will respond to that spirit, and will support us in rejecting the Bill because it contains Clause 3. The Financial Secretary said that it was necessary to pass this Bill in order to maintain discipline. There is no necessity to deprive the Dominion soldier of the right to appeal to the civil courts in order to maintain discipline. There has never been any question about the discipline of the British Army being weakened because a soldier has the right under certain circumstances to appeal to the civil courts. There is no difficulty in maintaining discipline. We have no objection to the Bill as far as it is designed to allow Colonial military authorities to maintain discipline in their own troops over here, but we object to that part which deprives British citizens, members of Dominion Forces, of the right of appeal to the civil courts, and the right to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

8 p.m.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I do not rise for the purpose of supporting the rejection of the Bill, but I am extremely glad to find that Members of the Opposition have awakened to the fact that there is in this Bill a serious attack on liberty.

Mr. LAWSON: What about your own friends?

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: When this Bill was last before the House of Commons the Labour Benches were empty, and it is only when the question was raised from these benches that for the first time hon. Members opposite began to take a languid interest in the question of liberty. It is refreshing to find that they have, at last discovered that liberty is in jeopardy. I appeal to the Government to deal with the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. I agree that it is a Committee point, but it is a point so vital that it should not be overlooked. If this National Government chooses to disregard one of the principles which is instinct in British Government, they will create a precedent of the worst possible type. I am not asking that the Government should in any way differentiate between Dominion Forces visiting this country and our own Forces. Neither am I asking that they should put the Dominion Forces in any other position than the position they would be in in their own Dominions. As I understand it, it is not only instinct throughout the Empire that military courts have always been subject to the right of revision by the civil courts, but it is absolutely instinct in the British constitution that it should be the case.
We have never allowed the military authorities to disregard the ordinary civil rights of British subjects, and we have never allowed them to be superior to the civil courts. It is quite true that in our own country, dealing with our own courts-martial, we do not inquire into the internal management of the military courts. But what we are insistent upon is that those military courts should be kept within their jurisdiction and should not exceed their jurisdiction; that they should not act without jurisdiction upon any man while subject to military law. That right is the right of every British soldier, and when he goes into the Army he knows perfectly well that if a military court attempts to deal with him without jurisdiction he has a right to go to the civil courts, to apply for a writ of habeas corpus; and that unless his imprisonment can be justified upon the ground that the military court had jurisdiction to deal with the offence with which he is charged, then he is set at liberty by the civil courts. As I understand it, in our own
Dominions, the same position exists. If a member of a Dominion force is improperly imprisoned by his own officers he will have the right to appeal by habeas corpus to his own courts within the Dominion in which he is. Those courts, if they find that the military court is imprisoning a man without jurisdiction, will interfere and set the man at liberty.
Those are the fundamental rights of British subjects. They are not some right which is merely the creature of statute; they are the right which is practically instinct in the British Constitution. That being the position, I ask that this Parliament should not interfere with them. It is all very well to say that this Measure takes away no right. That is not true. Everybody in this country who is imprisoned either by a military force or by anybody else without jurisdiction has the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in the courts of this country, and the civil courts of this country has a right to inquire by what jurisdiction that man is in prison. If this Bill passes, that right, which has existed for centuries and for the existence of which our forefathers died, will be taken away from us.
In the same way, a British subject who happens to be in a Dominion has apparently had his rights bartered away under the Statute of Westminster, and a British soldier who happens to be in a particular Dominion with the force to which he belongs is to have bartered away from him the right which he has at present of appealing to the Dominion courts if he is improperly and without jurisdiction imprisoned by his military officers. The answer which has been made is that this fact does not prevent him from appealing to the courts of his own British Dominion. The Under-Secretary knows perfectly well that that answer is so much rubbish. It is no good saying that a member of a Dominion Force visiting this country has the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus, say, in Australia. In the first place, if he sued it out in Australia it would not run here; it would not have the smallest effect upon a military officer in this country, because the Statute of Westminster itself prohibits that proceeding. The result is that the man would be left defenceless against the usurpation of jurisdiction by his own officers. In the same way, if a member of a British Force were in
Australia with the British Force, it is idle to say that he could sue out a writ of habeas corpus in this country. Under the Statute of Westminster, as I understand it, that right would not run in Australia.
One thing is not unimportant. The Statute, it is true, is reciprocal, but it only applies to those Dominions who adopt the special form of Act of Parliament or to those who have adopted the Statute of Westminster. It is a curious thing—and the Government can take it to heart if they choose—that the only part of the British Dominions has been one, and the only one, in which there has been any serious talk of secession from the British Empire. It is an amazing thing that that should be so, but it is true, and I think that it is about time that it was said. If we are going to barter away British rights it is curious that the only part of our Dominions which has passed this reciprocal Statute is the only one in which there is any serious talk of secession.
I have read the discussions in another place; I cannot refer to them, but I hope that hon. Members will read them. Some may say that they were only lawyers' discussions, but if they will read a closely-reasoned and very carefully written letter which appeared in the "Times" last week, they will find that Lord Atkin, who speaks without any party bias, has arraigned this Government upon this Measure in a way which has certainly had no answer of any sort or kind from this Government. I base my request to this Government—and it is a request earnestly made—upon British history. We have never sought to interfere with the internal arrangements of our forces, but ever since the days of the Stuarts this country has been extremely careful to keep the military forces under the eye, the jurisdiction and the supervision of the civil courts. The day on which that principle is infringed in any way is going to be an ill one for this country, and nobody will welcome that infringement of our liberty more than some of the extremists who are to be found on the benches opposite. The National Government is forging a weapon for the extremists of the Socialist party. As one of those who believe in the history of our country and that one of its great principles is the supremacy of civil law, I urge the Government to insert in this
Bill something which will put the Dominion forces in exactly the same position here that our own forces are in: the right to deal with their own internal discipline, but the right to exercise that jurisdiction subject to the supremacy of the civil courts, which may correct the military forces if they attempt to exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon them by this Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken on his discovery that liberty is in danger. Some of us on this side of the House have sometimes wished that there was even greater vigilance on the opposite side of the House in regard to personal liberty. That does not take away from the hon. and learned Gentleman the credit for having discovered that there is very great danger in this Bill. The Bill raises a very important matter. The case has been argued so cogently and eloquently, and from so many and unexpected quarters, that I should have thought the War Office would have taken the matter much more seriously than they have done hitherto. I cannot deal with the matter from the legal point of view, but it is very important to bear in mind that the Army Council, with its disciplinary regulations and its courts-martial, is modern compared with the civil courts of this country.
While the Financial Secretary to the War Office was speaking an amusing incident came to my mind. It related to a deputation which John Lilburn led in the stormy times of the Civil War. John Lilburn said, after having interviewed Cromwell or some of his lieutenants, "We went to ask for our rights and they gave us a thing called the Army Council." Though we would not call the Army Council a thing in these days, that story illustrates the shock that the idea of a super-organisation brought to the mind of the average man of that time. For years when the Army Act has been discussed in this House even Conservative Members have been very watchful lest that Act should contain anything that infringed unduly on personal liberty, or caused those who came under its influence to lose any chance of liberty.
The Army Act is not only in fact, but in the minds of the people of this
country, subsidiary to the ordinary law. When attention has been drawn to the danger in this Bill it seems to me that the War Office might have given the subject a little more serious consideration. I expected that the Financial Secretary, having followed the Debate in another place and the correspondence on the subject, would have dealt at length with the important point raised. He did not even seem to recognise its importance. If the War Office wish to retain confidence in discipline, if they are not seeking to flout ordinary civil liberty, they will give the matter further consideration. I ask the learned Solicitor-General to give the House some reason for not facing this point, or to give a guarantee that it is to be reconsidered before the Bill is forced through the House.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. THORP: On the last occasion when this Bill was before us in its present form we had the advantage of hearing my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He told us quite frankly that he was not proposing to tear up the Habeas Corpus Act. With that I entirely agree. There is no doubt about it that this Bill does not, in terms, affect the Habeas Corpus Act. What the Bill says is that if a commanding officer signs a certificate that a person has been properly convicted and so on, the Habeas Corpus Act shall not work, and I fail to see very much difference between the repeal of an Act and a provision in another Act which says that a particular Act is not to work in that case. In other words, in effect, whatever the terms are, this is a repeal to a partial extent of the Habeas Corpus Act. With some degree of surprise we heard my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General state that that was only a small matter. Some of us on this side of the House, and some hon. Members opposite, do not consider that a partial repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act is a small matter.
There is another point that perhaps has been overlooked, and that is that there is no definition in the Bill of a "commanding officer." I believe there is no definition of a commanding officer in our own Army Act, but a commanding officer in the British Army may, in certain circumstances, be a young gentleman of about 18 years of age. If a force is de-
tached and some distance away, it may be under the command of a young officer, no doubt an excellent officer—I am not saying a word against him—who may be only 18 or 19 years of age. By tearing a page out of a Field Service Note Book and writing a certificate on it, and signing his name, a young and comparatively inexperienced gentleman can paralyse the whole judiciary of this country, and that I am told by the Solicitor-General is only a small matter. Personally, I think it is rather a large matter.
There is in the Bill a definition of a "member." Clause 8 provides that:
Member" in relation to a visiting force includes any person who is by the law of that part of the Commonwealth to which the force belongs subject to the naval, military or air force law thereof, and who, being a member of another force, is attached to the visiting force, or, being a civilian employed in connection with the visiting force, entered into his engagement outside the United Kingdom.
Two points arise on that. If you have a British soldier who is attached to a visiting force in this country he thereby becomes a member of the visiting force. If he were tried before one of its service courts, notwithstanding that he is a British soldier the commanding officer who convened the court and confirmed the finding would, by a stroke of the pen, be enabled to deprive the British soldier of his right of appeal to the civil courts of this country. Precisely the same thing would apply in the case of a civilian who was employed in connection with visiting forces and who had entered into his engagement outside the United Kingdom. So, it is not only members of visiting forces qua soldiers who are being deprived of their rights. British soldiers in certain circumstances may also be deprived of their rights and, furthermore, civilians may be deprived of their rights.
In reply to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, may I say that it is a little unusual to hear the suggestion that the civil courts of this country are likely to or have any right to interfere with the discipline of the Army? They have never done anything of the kind. In case after case it has been pointed out by the civil courts that they will not interfere with the discipline of the Army. They would be the last to do anything to interfere in a matter the importance of which they fully recognise. Indeed I believe that in the Manual of Military Law the definition
of discipline printed at length—probably the finest definition of discipline that ever was given—is that which was uttered by Lord Ellenborough. It ill becomes the Financial Secretary to the War Office to suggest that there is the slightest likelihood of British courts, even if they had the power, interfering with the discipline of the forces.
When I had the honour of addressing the House on this subject previously I pointed out also that there might be a case in which a member of a visiting force was charged with some offence against the civil law of this country. Assume such a man to be prosecuted at assizes or quarter sessions and acquitted. His commanding officer might arraign him for precisely the same offence before one of these service courts. The officer could then sign a certificate bringing into operation this objectionable provision and the British courts who had acquitted the man could not, in face of that certificate, go to the man's assistance and get him out of prison. As to the point which has been raised, with regard to the probability of a man being able to ask the Australian courts for instance to interfere, of course, from a practical point of view, he could not do it. There is no question about that. Moreover it would not be a difficult matter for our courts to go into the question and to find out whether a court as constituted under a Colonial Act was properly constituted. Not once but many times our courts have had to consider the effects of foreign laws and there is no difficulty about doing it. Why should they be assumed, as apparently they are assumed, not to be capable of expressing an opinion on a Colonial Statute? I would also remind the House that the question of whether a writ of Habeas Corpus should issue or not might be the subject-matter of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Every day of the week there are appeals from the Dominions and the Colonies to the Privy Council on such matters. Is it to be said that the Privy Council are not fit to construe a Colonial Statute? Such a position is ridiculous.
While I do not intend to propose that the Bill should not be read a Second time I hope that in the circumstances the Government will see their way to put in some words to meet our case. The matter could be dealt with quite easily in half-a-dozen words and if the Government do
not know what words to use I shall be only too pleased to suggest words which would have the effect of meeting all the objections which we have raised to this Bill. It would be easy to amend the Bill in such a way as to leave the Habeas Corpus Act intact. It is significant that with the single exception, I believe, of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General there is not one lawyer in this House who has spoken otherwise than against the objectionable privilege contained in this Bill. In these circumstances I associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) and with hon. Members opposite on this point and I hope that the Government will see their way to amend a Bill to which at present there are such grave objections.

8.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): The hon. Member for Chester-Le-Street (Mr. Lawson) invited the Government to consider and to reply upon the real importance of this matter and I invite the House to consider it for a moment or two from that aspect. As I see it, the real importance of this Bill is that it raises a conflict between two very important matters. On the one hand there are the full implications of Dominion status accorded to the self-governing Dominions and recognised in the Statute of Westminster; on the other hand there is what I persist in calling one small exception to the Habeas Corpus Act. That is the real implication of this Bill and that is the importance of passing it intact.
I yield to no hon. Member in recognition of the importance of the Habeas Corpus Act as a pillar of our liberties but we must look at this question or try to look at it with some sense of perspective. As far as my researches have led me in the history of the British Army there have only been three successful applications for writs of habeas corpus in the last 100 years and there has been none since the Army Annual Act was passed in its present form in 1881. Of those three instances two would be unaffected by this Bill. The third is the case referred to by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) which I believe occurred in 1844. That is the sort of area in which we are discussing this matter. Let me say also that though a writ of habeas corpus is of course of great and abiding importance
it is not of universal application. For example, if the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) or I were to incur the displeasure of this House and were committed by Mr. Speaker to the Clock Tower no writ of habeas corpus would issue so long as the House was in Session.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Does my hon. and learned Friend for one moment suggest that this House is a military court or anything akin to a military court?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Of course I do not, but I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the universality of the Habeas Corpus Act. What I am pointing out is true not only with regard to hon. Members of this House but, however arbitrary we were in enforcing our privileges on those silent spectators, no writ of Habeas Corpus would issue in their favour so long as the House was in session.

Mr. THORP: Is it not a fact that a writ of Habeas Corpus would issue but that the reply to it would be that the people concerned were detained by order of this House, which would be a good answer to it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I invite my hon. and learned Friend, when the occasion arises, to go to the Strand and see—

Mr. THORP: It has been done.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: But there is, after all, another illustration which is a little more akin to our purpose. I agree that you will find no Statute about it and that you will probably find no decided case, but it is, I think, a generally recognised principle of international law, which, as such, is recognised and would be recognised by the courts of this country, that when foreign troops come here or our troops go to a foreign State by the invitation of the Sovereign, the Sovereign does to that extent forgo his sovereignty over the visiting troops for the time being.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of a principle of international law. Has it ever been applied except in two cases— one, where the foreign force was occupying territory, and, secondly, in the case
of the American Army in this country, where it was provided for under special regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Both those illustrations are, I think, perfect illustrations of what I was saying. With regard to the American troops, it was a considerable time after they came to this country that the Defence of the Realm Regulations were passed, and for this reason—if I had been allowed to finish what I was saying I should have stated it—that the principle of international law applies, as I understand it, to an organised body so long as it remains an organised body, and if they are here by our invitation, they are exempted from our sovereignty while they are in their own quarters or lines. Manifestly, there are difficulties of defining exactly what those limits may be; and manifestly when you had hundreds of thousands of American troops in this country, it was necessary to have something more definite than the international principle to which I am referring, and for that reason the Defence of the Realm Regulations were passed, though some time after the American troops had begun to arrive in this country.
It is said, "But do you really want to treat, does anybody contemplate treating, Dominion troops as if they were foreign troops? Does anyone contemplate treating the inhabitants of the Dominions as if they were the inhabitants of a foreign country?" Of course, no one ever dreams of such a thing. But there is all the difference in the world between treating the Dominions as if they were a foreign country and according to them privileges for which they happen to ask and which are indistinguishable from privileges in the same sense which may be enjoyed by foreign countries. By according a privilege which is the same privilege, you do not turn a Dominion into a foreign country. For example, we accord a fiscal independence which is indistinguishable in matters of taxation from that which a foreign country might employ against us; we allow them to regulate immigration into their own country in precisely the same way that any foreign country could restrict immigration from this country. That does not turn the Dominion into a foreign country, but is merely according it privileges which
are indistinguishable from the rights enjoyed by foreign countries.
When it is said that nobody could suppose that in a matter like this you want to treat the Dominions as if they were foreign countries, it is precisely that for which the Dominions have asked. At the Imperial Conference, as I understand it, with this precedent of the American troops before them, the Dominions, one and all, asked that a Bill in that form should be passed reciprocally as between ourselves and each of the Dominions. It is, therefore, idle to speak as if we were insulting them by calling them foreign countries. We are according them, in accordance with the principles of full Dominion status, the same privilege in this particular as we should accord to foreign troops if they were visiting this country. Viewed in that way, I ask hon. Members to say that this is a very much graver matter than the mere exception of certain Dominion troops from the Habeas Corpus Act.
I say, quite frankly, having regard to some of the interruptions which have occurred in my short attempt to explain this matter, and to what has occurred on previous occasions, that I have very little hope of converting those who are prepared merely to look at this, as it were, through the legal microscope; but to those who are prepared to look at it, as it were, with the naked eye, I would say that I think that if we were to refuse the Dominions this which they have asked us to give them, we should run some risk of being accused of grandmotherly solicitude for those who are quite well able to take care of themselves and their own citizens.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: It is remarkable that the only members of the legal profession who refuse to look at this matter through the legal microscope are the Law Officers of the Crown. The learned Solicitor-General raised the point of the United States troops who were here during the War, and said it was a principle of international law that if foreign troops were quartered here, they should be subject only to their own law with regard to military tribunals, but I would like to put this question: Is it not a fact that if foreign troops were quartered in this country, a writ of Habeas Corpus would issue out in a case of this kind,
and would be returnable? It seems to me a very strange compliment to the Dominions to say that we shall put a private soldier, serving in a Dominion regiment quartered in this country, in a worse position than a foreign soldier or a foreign subject who might happen to be staying within these islands. We are saying that our own subjects are going to be protected against any form of arbitrary imprisonment, and a foreigner is going to be protected in the same way, but the only person to whom this protection is to be denied is a member of a visiting force from a British Dominion.
The argument has been put up that this is a reciprocal arrangement, but it is one of the strangest arguments that I have heard during the short time I have been a Member of this House to say that, although we are doing something which is an infringement of liberty here, that is covered because something similar is being done in one or more of the Dominions. We were told by the Solicitor-General that there had been only three successful applications under the Habeas Corpus Act in cases of this kind. What is the reason for that? Is it not just this, that there has been this supervisory jurisdiction of the civil courts? Then we were told that the Dominions had asked for this Bill, but it seems to me that even that is not a sufficient reason for making this very grave infringement of the Habeas Corpus Act. I think I am the first Member from these benches who has spoken in this Debate. We have already bartered away our fiscal freedom to the Dominions, but why should we barter away some of our other liberties to the Dominions as well?
I want to protest against a Measure of this kind being brought forward in this way at the fag end of public business, at a time when very few hon. Members could have realised that it was likely to come and that the Measure which preceded it would have been disposed of in so short a time. If it had been realised that this Measure was to be discussed at this hour, there would have been a much larger attendance. I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether the Government will not at least agree to commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House so that the point in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 can have the full consideration of the whole of the Members of the House.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the intention of the Bill is merely to meet the request of the Dominions to our Government at the Imperial Conference. Even so, there still remains a point to which I should like a reply. It was raised by an hon. Member opposite. What is the position of a civilian who is attached to a visiting force? Does he lose his rights under Habeas Corpus? That civilian may be a British subject attached to a Canadian force. Does he, because he is attached to a visiting Canadian force, although still living in England, lose his rights under Habeas Corpus?

8.47 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that the answer to that is contained in the definition. If he were in the real sense of the word a member of
any body, contingent or detachment of the naval, military and air forces
of the particular Dominion, then he would, like the rest of the detachment, be covered by this Bill, but not otherwise. It is a matter for the Dominions concerned as to whether they allow civilians to be members of their Forces.

Mr. JONES: May I press that point a little further? I take it that for the pur-

pose of this Bill, so long as the individual British citizen is attached to the visiting force, he is no longer, in fact, a British citizen.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Member is speaking of a British citizen in this country who is for the time being attached—

Mr. JONES: I was, certainly.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then he would not be affected.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I would like to supplement that question by asking if the hon. and learned Member is correct, because the definition of "Member" says:
being a civilian employed in connection with the visiting force, entered into his engagement outside the United Kingdom.
That surely means that if a British subject entered into an engagement outside the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "An Englishman !"] Well, if an Englishman, and a civilian at that, enters into an engagement outside the United Kingdom with a visiting force, is he to be deprived of the rights of Habeas Corpus?

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 30.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[8.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Craven-Eills, William
Hornby, Frank


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Atkinson, Cyril
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Eastwood, John Francis
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elmley, Viscount
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Law, Sir Alfred


Blindell, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leckie, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lees-Jones, John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lewis, Oswald


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Liddall, Walter S.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mabane, William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Patrick)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Buchan, John
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burnett, John George
Greene, William P. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grimston, R. V.
Makins Brigadier-General Ernest


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.


Cassels, James Dale
Harbord, Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hartland, George A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clarke, Frank
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Conant, R. J. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Munro, Patrick


Nall-Caln, Hon. Ronald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Peat, Charles U.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Penny, Sir George
Sandeman, Sir A, N. Stewart
Strauss, Edward A.


Percy, Lord Eustace
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Petherick, M.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Selley, Harry R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pybus, Percy John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Slater, John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Rankin, Robert
Sm'thers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ray, Sir William
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sopor, Richard
Womersley, Walter James


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Robinson, John Roland
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.



Ropner, Colonel L.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Banfield, John William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Daggar, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jenkins, Sir William



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Tinker.


Bill read a Second time.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 155.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[8.59 p.m.


Banfield, John William
Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sir W. Greaves-Lord and Mr. Dingle Foot.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cassels, James Dale
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Atkinson, Cyril
Castle Stewart, Earl
Goff, Sir Park


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clarke, Frank
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major William Philip
Greene, William P. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cooper, A. Duff
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Craven-Ellis, William
Hanbury, Cecil


Blindell, James
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord, Arthur


Bossom, A. C.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hartland, George A.


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Elmley, Viscount
Hornby, Frank


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Buchan, John
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Burnett, John George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Percy, Lord Eustace
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Petherick, M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Peto, Geoffrey (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Soper, Richard


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Law, Sir Alfred
Pybus, Percy John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islea)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Liddall, Walter S.
Rankin, Robert
Strauss, Edward A.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ray, Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Mabane, William
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Robinson, John Roland
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Selley, Harry R.
Womersley, Walter James


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Peat, Charles U.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Penny, Sir George
Slater, John



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reduction of the subsidies payable to local authorities in Scotland under Section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, in certain cases, and in all other respects to bring to an end the power of the Department of Health for Scotland to grant subsidies under Sections one and three of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the said Act of 1924; to enable the said Department to undertake to make contributions in certain cases towards losses sustained by local authorities under guarantees given by them for facilitating the provision of houses to be let to the working classes; and, for purposes connected with or incidental to the foresaid matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable in pursuance of undertakings given by the Department of Health for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, under the said Act to reimburse to local authorities not more than one-half of any losses sustained by them under the terms of guarantees given to societies under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section seventy-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, where the advances whereof the repayment is guaranteed are made by the society for the purpose of enabling any of its members to build or acquire houses intended to be let to persons of the working classes and the Department is satisfied—

756
(a) that the guarantee extends only to the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to be advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by them with out any such guarantee; and 
(b) that the liability of the local authority under the guarantee cannot be greater than two-thirds of that principal and interest."

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Walthamstow, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Wrotham, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Croydon, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Stanley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT (POLLS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

9.8 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: The point that I wish to raise upon this Motion for the Adjournment arises out of the Question which I put to the Home Secretary on Thursday last, which was:
whether his attention has been called to the intervention of the cinema trade in the districts where a poll has been taken on the question of Sunday cinema opening; and whether he is prepared to extend the Municipal Elections Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act to cover polls held under the Sunday Entertainments Act?"—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1933; col. 337, Vol. 274.]
We have just heard three Orders made for the opening of cinemas on Sunday, following a poll taken as provided in the Sunday Entertainments Act of last year. I want to ask the House to consider how those verdicts of the people were obtained in favour of the plea of the cinema trade that they should be able to open their places of entertainment on Sunday. I can show that they were obtained by a lavish expenditure of money only proportional to the immense financial gain that they would have if they could get a verdict of the people in their favour. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied to my question that his right hon. Friend was:
only aware of one case in which it has been suggested that undue influence has been exercised by the free admission of persons to a cinema on Sunday when a poll was about to be held in pursuance of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that any legislation is necessary. In any event it would not be practicable to deal with this matter merely by applying the provisions of the Municipal Elections Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act which relate to the election of candidates." —OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1933; col. 338, Vol. 274.]
Two points arise on that. Firstly, I am not satisfied with the answer that I received that the Home Secretary sees no reason for legislation being necessary, or secondly, with the answer that the Municipal Elections Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, applying to municipal elections, would not be ipsissima verba applicable in this case, because it applies to municipal elections where there are
candidates on either side, and to what is to take place in regard to candidates' expenditure and so forth. There is a principle underlying that which is applicable, and I shall ask the House to consider whether it is reasonable, considering what we believed when we passed that Act last year to be the procedure, where objection was held in any area to a cinema being opened on Sunday, that the question should be put for decision before the electors of that area.
We imagined, this being a domestic question, that it was going to be settled quite simply by the people being asked whether they were in favour of it or not. Instead of that, we find an elaborate organisation, spending money on a lavish scale far beyond the scale that is allowed to candidates even in Parliamentary elections. The statement I made on Thursday was questioned by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), but I am absolutely correct on that point. I have the very highest direct evidence. On that point the Under-Secretary said:
I cannot imagine how anyone could estimate such expenditure either by those who oppose the opening of Sunday cinemas or by those who are in favour of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1933; col. 338, Vol. 274.]
So far as expenditure on the part of those who favour Sunday opening is concerned, I can give the House the best possible evidence, namely, that of the organisers of the campaign for opening, the actual people who made the expenditure and who, I might almost say, glory in the amount of the expenditure as showing the extraordinary efficiency of the trade in gaining further concessions and opportunities for making money.
I must first let the House know briefly what has been going on. I shall in almost every case quote the cinema trade papers. They cannot be questioned. They are not papers printed by opponents of Sunday opening or by individuals directed by the Lord's Day Observance Society or anything of that kind. The first quotation is from the "Daily Mail" of the 5th December. Speaking of the poll which took place at Walthamstow, it mentions armies of canvassers and fleets of cars, and says that 500 film trade cars were employed. The second relates to the poll at Croydon, in
regard to which the "Kinematograph Weekly" of the 1st December says that well over 300 cars were in commission; and it mentions this detail:
A fleet of no fewer than 40 cars was detailed to wait outside the big local gasworks at 5 o'clock, to pick up workpeople as they came out.
That is really almost a lesson to any hon. Member who may be standing in a hotly-contested election, as to how to use cars to the greatest possible advantage to get the decision that he wants.
My third quotation is from the "Daily Film Renter" of the 7th January, and relates to the poll at Tottenham. It speaks of myriad hoardings, hundreds of canvassers, and 12 committee rooms,
from which an avalanche of propaganda is belched forth daily.
That is not very pretty journalese, but still it is forcible in effect.
My fourth quotation is from the "Leyton Express." That is just a local paper, describing what took place at the Leyton and Leytonstone poll with regard to Sunday opening. I particularly commend this to the Under-Secretary, because, in his reply to me, he rather seemed to infer that it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black—that as much was spent by the opponents of Sunday opening as was spent by those who favoured Sunday opening.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Sir B. PETO: I was saying that my fourth quotation is from the "Leyton Express" of the 21st January. It states that the efforts of the opponents were hardly noticed in the flood of organisation initiated by the champions of Sunday opening. It goes on to speak of 150 cars and 2,000 or 3,000 helpers, and then it says this:
Leyton's convincing majority for Sunday cinema opening represents a personal triumph for Mr. E. P. Hall, manager of the Granada Cinema, Walthamstow, who, as honorary secretary of the Sunday Flms Association, was responsible for the campaign undertaken by the association.
The last piece of evidence as to the magnitude of the expenditure to which I would call the attention of the House relates to the poll at Edmonton last Saturday week, where a competent
observer reported that one poster he saw was 50 feet in length by 10 feet in height, that another was 16 feet by 15 feet, and that he met 25 sandwich-men in a single row.
What does all this cost? In the "Kinematograph Weekly" of the 8th December, Mr. J. S. Richardson, who organised the Croydon campaign, gives the paper his own estimate, which, therefore, cannot be a partial or prejudiced estimate, but is the estimate of the actual organiser of the Croydon campaign. He says:
I estimate that to conduct a successful campaign the financial outlay should not be less than 8d. a head of the electorate. In an area embracing 100,000 voters, this means spending £3,500. That may appear a lot of money, but a moment's reflection will convince anyone that the loss resulting from an adverse poll—the penalty, perhaps, of cutting the estimate by only 1d.—would be many times greater.
That is what was said by the organiser of the Croydon propaganda for Sunday opening on behalf of the association of the film trade. He was asked his opinion in regard to this, which was the earliest of these different contests by holding a poll of the people.
From that the House will see two things. In the first place, a lavish expenditure was advocated—not a policy of cutting anything down—because the prize for which they are contending is so many times greater than the expenditure. I think that that shows conclusively that I was right in raising the question, and I think I am right in raising it now on the Adjournment, because it is a very serious matter. It shows that the cinema trade is, in effect, out to buy a verdict from the people by lavish expenditure such as, certainly, no one would be allowed to incur in any other public matter concerning a municipality or any similar area. It has defeated the purpose of Parliament as expressed in the Sunday Entertainments Act. That Measure provided for a poll of the people in accordance with the First Schedule of the Borough Funds Act, 1903, paragraphs 3 to 16 of which are incorporated in the Sunday Entertainments Act. It provides that a poll may be required by not less than 100 electors or one-twentieth of the number of electors, whichever may be the less, and that polls on any number of resolutions may be taken at the same time by means of the same voting paper. It also
provides that the mayor or chairman shall count or cause to be counted the votes of the poll, and shall as soon as practicable declare the result. I need not trouble the House with further quotations, except to mention that these provisions lay down the method of dealing with a purely local matter, such as the question of the promotion of a Bill before Parliament, or something of that kind; and the same procedure is enacted in the Sunday Entertainments Act. Instead of that, we find fleets of cars, hosts of canvassers, and enormous expenditure altogether out of proportion to what, would be allowed in any local election, and calculated, I think, to defeat the purpose of Parliament as enacted last year, which was that we expected to get a just expression of real local opinion.
The next reason I object to all this is that it undoubtedly introduces undue influence by a trade organisation which would be entirely contrary to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Acts of 1883 and 1884. The 1884 Act extended it to municipal elections if there was a poll in which candidates were concerned. I object to it, too, because a trade organisation is spending up to four times the legal maximum of 2d. an elector allowed by the Local Expenses Act, 1919. Not only does it exceed what would be allowed to be spent in a Parliamentary election, but the estimate I have given the House, the estimate of the organiser of the Croydon victory, was an expenditure of 8d. per elector, which is exactly four times what is allowed to a candidate at a municipal election. I have a much stronger ground of objection even than that. It defeats the purpose of Parliament when Parliament enacted Clause 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. Prior to that, trade organisations, particularly the licensed trade, had been in the habit of spending a great deal of money in support of a candidate whom they believed would support them by putting up gratis posters, distributing literature and so forth.
It was felt by the Speaker's Conference, which I remember, that this interference by trade organisations in a Parliamentary election was wrong. As far as I am concerned, I have never had any reason to complain of the action the licensed trade took, because they were always on my side. Probably my hon. Friend below me
would not always have been so pleased of their intervention in any election in which he was concerned. That, however, is beside the matter. Parliament deliberately said that trade organisations should not interfere with elections. If that is true of elections, why, when you want to get the honest opinion of the people as to whether they want to preserve their Sundays or whether they want cinematograph entertainments on a Sunday afternoon, should you allow any trade organisation to interfere, especially when it is a party to the question and stands to benefit enormously if the decision goes one way?
This is contrary to the whole spirit of the legislation we passed last year. It is making a farce of this remission to the people for their decision of a question that concerns them. It enables an immensely powerful and enormously wealthy organisation to spend unlimited money. There is no limit to the amount they can spend. They can use as many cars as they like, they can convey house wives going out shopping to the poll and then deliver them to any place they want to go to, as has been done in one case. That sort of thing would not be allowed at an election, but it is all right when you are demanding a decision from the people on this question. I was therefore not satisfied with the answer I received that the Home Secretary did not think there was any need for considering legislation. I was not satisfied to be told what I knew perfectly well before, that the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act as it stands could not possibly be applied to these cases. That may be quite true, but it is no reason whatever why, now that we see how these things are being conducted, we should not fill up this obvious gap in the Act of last year, which was passed in order—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss on this Motion matters that require legislation.

Sir B. PETO: I may be out of order in asking for legislation, but I am quite sure that there are other means that the Home Secretary can devise to see that what was the intention of Parliament when it passed that Act last year should not be ridden over rough-shod at these elections.

9.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: I had not intended to intervene to-night, but I do so as the champion of the common people of this country who wish to spend their Sunday afternoons and evenings as they choose. I belong to a church, as far as I know the only church in this country, which says we have got to go to church on Sunday and thereafter within reasonable limits we do what we like. I fail to see why the hon. Member who has spoken or any other hon. Member of this House should presume to dictate to the people of this country how they should spend their Sundays. I cannot refrain from asking why it is that, although attention has been drawn to what might be described as under influence on one side, no attention has been drawn to the influence equally undue which has been exercised by gentlemen speaking from pulpits and other places six feet above contradiction. There has been just as much interference of that sort, and I cannot help thinking that of the two forms of interference the one I have just mentioned is the worse. Those hon. Members who hold these evangelical points of view can maintain if they like that it is their duty to dictate to the remainder of us, but this is a free country and I cannot believe for one moment that the citizens of this country are to be dictated to in matters of conscience in this way by people who have no more right to decide than they themselves.
Surely this matter can be left to the decision of the individual. After all, these people work all the week and Sunday is their one day of leisure. Surely we have had enough indication in the polls which have taken place all over the country that the people of this country as a whole do not desire interference in this matter from any outside body or from the Members of this House. Our liberties are enough trampled upon in these days without interference of this sort. I would conclude by saying that I, at any rate, felt obliged to stand up here to-night and speak for these tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people who are not articulate but who at any rate know what they want and are prepared, if necessary, to fight for it.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I want to reply, first of all, to the hon. and gallant
Member who has just spoken on the liberty of the individual. I can assure him that those who speak as the representatives of the employés of the cinema industry will not be influenced in the least by what he has just said. As a matter of fact, if the view about liberty put forward by the hon. and gallant Member held good, all the shops in this country would always be open until midnight and on Sundays, too. The shop assistants and the trade unions representing them do not agree that opportunity should be given to people to come in at midnight to do their shopping when they can very well do it before six in the afternoon. So much for liberty. Consequently that point is not a difficult one to determine.
I am very pleased indeed that the hon. Baronet has raised this issue of corrupt practices, but I am not going to elaborate upon it. I wish to raise with the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary one or two other points in connection with the administration of the same Act. When I raise the first point I hope to expand what has already transpired in this House some time ago. I was pleased beyond measure to find then practically that every Member of the House whether he agreed with Sunday opening or not, was unwilling—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would point out to the House that the hon. Member has given me no notice of any point he is going to raise. All that I know was going to be raised was the point of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). If the hon. Member intends to raise any point covered by the Sunday Cinematograph Act he must realise that I may not be able to answer him.

Mr. DAVIES: I do not know exactly how many questions we can raise this evening. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the administration of the Sunday Entertainments Act, but if he is not in a position to give an adequate reply to my questions I shall not complain in the least. My main point in rising is not so much to get the hon. Gentleman to reply to the issues I raise but to expose what is happening in connection with the administration of this Act of Parliament
I will make this observation right away to those who are promoting Orders under this Act, that as far as I am concerned I shall take every opportunity to oppose every Order which comes before this House unless I am satisfied that the labour conditions in the cinema industry in the area covered by the Order are carried out according to law.
I come therefore to the one point which has troubled me for some time past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Lieut.-Commander Bower) apparently wants liberty for the cinema proprietor to do what he likes. The hon. Gentleman opposite knows all about this point I am sure. It is the Birmingham case. I want to expose it to-night if I may. The law lays it down definitely in the Act already quoted that no employé in the cinema industry shall be engaged on Sunday as well as the six previous days. A few days ago I raised with the hon. Gentleman the point about Birmingham where the cinema industry is allowed to open on Sunday. I was told authoritatively—and it is not disputed by the Home Office—that the employers of the cinema industry there in some cases engaged their employés on Sunday although they employed them also on the previous six days. When they were met with the challenge that they were breaking the law, their answer was that as the employés were working for nothing on Sundays, they were not employed within the meaning of the common law of the land.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not want to have to interrupt the hon. Member. I am sure that he does not want to mislead the House grossly. He raised the point by question and answer, and it was explained to him that the particular case was a concert on Hospital Sunday when all the services in the cinema, whether by the employers or employés were given free and the whole of the takings were given to the charities of the town. I think that that explanation was given to the House. It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I do not think that it is quite fair of the hon. Gentleman, knowing the real facts, to put it to the House in the manner he has done.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it in that fashion either. He has been rather biased on this Act from the begining, if he does not mind my saying so. I had complaints
from eight employés of one cinema in Birmingham in this way: Would any engine-driver, tramway driver, miner, engineer or any other workman care to work on Sunday in the factory, pit or elsewhere even for charity? I know of no workman who would be willing to give his seventh day in the pit or the engineering shop for charity. He might, of course, do something else for the cause. That is a very strong point. These men have no alternative except to agree to the suggestion of the employer to give a Sunday even for the sake of charity. If they objected they might be dismissed from service. The employer has always that weapon. Let me take the hon. Member a step further since his reply on that issue. What has happened in Birmingham is, I am afraid, possible in other cases. I am not going to emphasise the Birmingham case so much as to expose the tendencies which are possible under this Act. If I can do anything at all to stop those tendencies, I must do so by exposing them in the House of Commons. The point raised in Birmingham since then is that it has been suggested that as they cannot employ their own employés on the seventh day they might get round the law another way. The licensing magistrates very rightly told them what the law is, and I pay tribute to the Home Office in this matter. I think it has given an indication that that could not be done. I am not complaining about the Department of the hon. Gentleman at all. The suggestion that I now object to was made, according to the cinema Press, that while employers might not employ their own employés on the seventh day in Birmingham, according to the injunction of the magistrates, they could, however, go to the outside towns where the Act is not adopted and bring in employés from those towns to work on Sundays in Birmingham when in fact they had already worked for six days a week in those cinemas outside the city. I am not saying that the suggestion was adopted. I cannot tell.

Mr. STANLEY: Who made the suggestion?

Mr. DAVIES: I will give the hon. Gentleman the cutting from the cinema newspaper.

Mr. STANLEY: Who was supposed to make the suggestion—the cinema industry?

Mr. DAVIES: No, it was made, I believe, by one or two licensing magistrates. However strongly this House felt in favour of opening cinemas on Sundays, we were ail agreed on both sides that nothing should be done to violate the six days' labour principle in the cinema industry. That fact was understood by all. May I put another point to the hon. Gentleman? I am sorry that I have not given him notice of this point either. I should like him to look into the complaints with regard to the special fund which is being established under this Act of Parliament. There was a statement made on the authority of the Government in another place in July, 1932, on the same lines as that which has been made by the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion. Everybody interested in the Bill when it was passing through Committee upstairs did not understand that a committee was to be appointed by the Privy Council to administer the fund which was to be set up under the Measure. I may have been wrong in my assumption on that occasion, but I have always understood that there was to be no special committee appointed. All that was understood was that a fund was to be established. We never got as far, in my recollection, as knowing exactly who was to administer the fund. Now I am told that a committee has already been appointed, and the complaint is made that the committee in the main is representative only of the trade. It was thought that if any committee was to be set up to administer the special fund, at any rate, the organisations representing the cultural side of films should be represented.

Mr. STANLEY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the source of his information?

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, I will give the hon. Gentleman the information.

Mr. STANLEY: Will the hon. Member answer me—the source of that information?

Mr. DAVIES: I will give it.

Mr. STANLEY: Can the hon. Member give it now, seeing that he has raised the point?

Mr. DAVIES: Why does the hon. Member press me to give the source of information on points about which I speak?

Mr. STANLEY: I thought that if I could check the information I could see whether the authority was as reliable as the other.

Mr. DAVIES: The Young Men's Christian Association, as far as I know, is critical of the representation of this proposed council. In conclusion, I hope that it is in the very best spirit that the hon. Gentleman and myself disagree about the main purpose of the Act. There never was any disagreement at all upon the principle—and that is the most important point to-night—of the six days week. I am not complaining in the least about the action of the Home Office in this respect, but I shall be very happy indeed if they will keep their eyes on the situation so that the serious departure I have mentioned may not develop in other parts of the country.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I apologise to the House for replying immediately to the statements made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), but I think it is only right in view of some of the things that he has said, that hon. Members who perhaps may have to leave the House before a reply might otherwise be given should not go away in the belief that there is any substance in any of the accusations that he has made. The hon. Member and I have differed a great deal on this subject but hitherto we have always differed in the most friendly spirit. I do think, however, that to-night he has not been quite fair to those who take a different view from himself on this matter. I have already dealt with the question as to opening in Birmingham. The hon. Member raised it in the House some months ago. He obtained at the time considerable sympathy, until the full facts were made available to the House. I think everybody then agreed that the special circumstances of the case were such that, quite clearly, they did not come within the purview of the discussions we have had on Sunday labour, and the agreements to which we had come. When the hon. Member talks about people who are forced by their employers to go to work on a Sunday for nothing, for charity, when the employers themselves are giving everything, does anyone really think that an employer would dispense with the services of a useful employé, because he refused to come out to
work on a Sunday for the benefit, not of the employer, who gets nothing out of it, but of charity?
With regard to the other point which the hon. Member raised as to Birmingham, I think he might have waited. It is only three days ago since he asked me a question in the House. I told him then that the Home Office had no knowledge of the matter, but that I was making inquiries and would let him know as soon as I heard. He knew, therefore, when he raised the point this evening that had I been in a position to give him any further information I should already have done so. There could be no object in raising the point to-night, knowing that he could not get an answer and that I was pressing on the matter of inquiry with the utmost speed, but to raise prejudice in the minds of the House against the operation of the Sunday Cinemas Act. As to the last point in regard to a committee to administer the fund, I do not know whether the committee is to assist the Privy Council or to take the place of the Privy Council, in defiance of the Act of Parliament, but he makes the accusation quite gaily because he says that the Young Men's Christian Association are not satisfied. I can assure him that my authority on this question is even greater than that of the Young Men's Christian Association, that the fund is to be administered by the Privy Council in accordance with the terms of the Act of Parliament which we have passed, and that no such committee to administer the fund has been set up or is contemplated.
I should like now to turn to the main subject of the Debate. I make no complaint. The hon. Baronet was perfectly right in bringing this subject to the attention of the House, but it is unfortunate that he has chosen to do it in this particular way because, as hon. Members know, we cannot to-night discuss anything that needs legislation on this subject. It is clear from the hon. Baronet's own question that if he is right in his contention it can only be dealt with by legislation, and I am precluded to-night therefore from what is really one of the most important branches of this discussion, namely, to discuss how it is possible to extend legislation of the kind mentioned by the hon. Baronet to cases such as this, where there is no candidate who can be held responsible for expenditure on one-
side or the other. If hon. Members will think over the matter for themselves they will see the extreme difficulty of legislation of any kind. There is great danger that you might fall between two stools. You might fail to prevent lavish expenditure or you might have to draw your legislation so tightly that the public are not able to get an exposition of the two sides of the case to which they are entitled. No one would say that if you pass an Act of Parliament which prevented any expenditure of any kind by either side, which prevented the hiring of a hall for a meeting, the issuing of a pamphlet, or the issuing of advertisements of any kind, that in these circumstances the electors would really come to a valuable decision on the matter. If you are to get a clear decision on a subject of this kind you must have a chance of putting both sides of the question before the electors. On behalf of the Home Secretary I promise that we will carefully watch the situation as it arises, having in view the very manifold and manifest difficulties of any legislation on the subject.
Passing from the more theoretical consideration and coming down to the practical one, affecting the particular case which the hon. Baronet has in mind, perhaps the worst example is the case of Croydon. I would ask the House whether, after all they have heard, they really think that the example of Croydon is one that makes it necessary for the Government immediately to pledge themselves to legislation of a most dangerous kind. It seems to me that in Croydon of the two sides it was a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. It seems to me to balance out almost exactly. I see from the "Times" of the 30th November that:
The Bishop of Croydon himself voted early, in favour of Sunday opening. Lord Rochester the Paymaster-General, drove a car in the opposing interest.
I do not know whether a Bishop counts above or below the Paymaster-General, but I think they are probably more or less on a par.
Most of the printed exhortations to 'Vote for Sunday cinemas 'were on motor cars—of which there were said to be 800 in use by the two parties—most of the posters offering contrary counsel were displayed in front of churches…. The forces rallied by the opponents of Sunday opening included men and women up to the age of 80
—veterans who often did not trouble to hide their views. The cinema interests complain that young people on whose support they could have counted were largely excluded by the terms of the municipal franchise from recording theirs.
Here is a complaint for which the "Times" offers no remedy and for which I am afraid the House of Commons cannot offer one. The "Times report says:
The cinemas had, on the other hand, an unfair advantage in the numerous pretty girls who had come from Elstree to take part in the campaign for them. Loud speaker vans, and open-air cinema vans, crocodiles of sandwich-men and hoardings were all impressed into service by one side or the other.
Apart from all this talk on one side or the other, apart from the sort of quotation that the hon. Baronet has read from the trade papers, which I should be inclined to discount a little on the ground that they were written by people who had been organising these shows and who, no doubt, were desiring to show the trade what effective organisers they were, in the hope that they would be called upon to organise others in the future—when all that is put on one side, the hon. Baronet's real complaint is that this propaganda is making the decision of Parliament nugatory. I would point out that at Croydon 34,000 people voted for the opening of cinemas on Sunday and 24,000 people voted against. Does the House really think that the 800 motor cars and the expenditure even if it was so lavish on posters, posters even as gargantuan as those referred to, really brought about a result which was not in accordance with the desire of the people in the district? I am sure that the hon. Baronet does not desire to be a bad loser. I have made no secret of the fact that I am in favour of Sunday cinemas, but I do not go about talking of the undue influence of the churches in Oldham, where Sunday cinemas have been rejected, or in Epping where Sunday cinemas have been objected to. Surely the hon. Baronet would not raise a question of this kind unless he thought that the 10,000 majority in Croydon was due entirely to the fact that posters and motor cars were used.

Sir B. PETO: Is the Under-Secretary aware that at most of these places only
23 per cent., the maximum is 25 per cent., of the electorate voted, and, therefore, any argument must be conditioned by that fact? It is perfectly possible for this gigantic organisation to induce people to vote who would not otherwise have voted.

Mr. STANLEY: As a matter of fact, at Croydon there was a vote of well over 50 per cent. of the electorate.

Sir B. PETO: indicated dissent.

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will correct my figures as we go along. There are 116,000 electors on the roll and 59,000 voted. He will see that that is just over 50 per cent.

Sir B. PETO: At Walthamstow, Epping and Tottenham the poll has been only 23 per cent. up to 25 per cent.

Mr. McENTEE: You are wrong again.

Mr. STANLEY: Even if it is only 20 per cent., there is not much in the argument. In Croydon the percentage was 50. It is larger than any figure recorded in any local government election in Croydon. Do hon. Members think that a vote of 59,000 really represents the views of Croydon, or do they think that over 10,000 were induced to vote for something to which they are really opposed because of the use of motor cars, posters and leaflets? I promise the House, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that we shall watch the situation carefully, but until we are convinced that what the hon. Baronet says is true, that the results of the elections do not truly represent the will of the people, until then—and I am sure the House will agree—difficult, dangerous and complicated legislation must be postponed

9.57 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I did not know that this question was to be raised until the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) rose, and I only intervene because of what has been said in the course of the Debate. I am astonished by some of the arguments brought forward. We have heard of the intervention of the Churches and of those who feel keenly on the subject. Surely, there is all the difference in the world between the leaders of the Churches and others taking part in a controversy and a trade which is inspired simply by a desire for finan-
cial gain. Let the preacher preach as fervently as he desires, and the advocate speak with all the zeal he can on public questions, they are making their contribution to public opinion, but the other opinion is quite different. It is a contribution which has behind it the hunger of vested interests. If the argument of the Under-Secretary is pursued to its logical conclusion, you might just as well sweep away all restrictions on our system of elections. We might just as well take away the restrictions upon all activities at elections and allow a free choice of the people.
The reason we have built up all these restrictions on activities at the time of elections is because of the power of vested interests; otherwise, we might have a House of Commons constituted not by the will of the people but as the result of pressure brought to bear by arguments which are not concerned with public interests but with the advantage of vested interests. Very great care has been taken, and if that line is overstepped you have all the procedure of the Petition and all the elaborate machinery of the law brought to bear. Deviation, only by a hair's breadth, may make a difference between a man being elected a Member of this House or being rejected. If that is the Constitution of this House, have we not something else at stake? I remember well the remarkable contribution to the discussion made by the Under-Secretary himself. No one did more than he did at that time to lift that Debate into the higher level of controversy. But I am disappointed with him to-night. He says that they will watch this with careful interest at the Home Office. He is evidently not concerned, to judge by his speech, with what has happened.

Mr. STANLEY: I am sure that the hon. Member wishes to do me justice. I did explain the difficulty under which I was labouring to-night. We were not allowed to discuss legislation, and I was therefore unable to point out to the House the very great and almost insuperable difficulty which lies in the path of legislation in this matter.

Mr. FOOT: I yield to no one in my desire to do justice to the hon. Gentleman in this matter. No one has appreciated more than I have the part he played in it, although I was on the other side. But
I listened with great care to him to-night, and from his first words to his last he gave me no evidence of concern, nor did the hon. Baronet behind him, and the same must have been felt by many hon. Members of this House. As a matter of fact, I appealed to those who were supporters of this Measure, and I opposed it in the first instance on the ground that it laid the Sunday open to exploitation. I did not want to interfere with the liberty of people to decide how they would use their Sundays, but I thought that you would lay the Sunday open to exploitation, and that, as soon as you gave the vested interests a chance, they would look round on the untouched areas. Just as a great general looked upon London and said: "What a city to sack!" so these vested interests looked round on the Sunday and said: "What a day to exploit!" It was this exploitation of Sunday that gave us such grave concern. What is happening justifies us in the action we took at that time. I cannot suggest what legislation ought to be introduced; that is not within my right; but I believe that the obligation rests upon the Home Office, and upon those who supported this Measure at that time, to see that the arguments upon which they rested their case shall be maintained by what is happening in the country.
We were told at that time that we could not object to a fair appeal to the public. At present we have not a fair appeal; the scales are not being held evenly. We were told just now—I was astonished to hear the Under-Secretary say—that there was "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." Does he not know the difference between the defence of a public interest and an attack by a private interest? The private interest is always concentrated. It is always able to launch its attack on a given point. The public interest is always diffused, and whenever there is a fight between a particular and a public interest the particular interest has the advantage. There is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, making a public appeal in a little township, getting together several people with no concern in the public interest and asking them to make their contribution towards building up an election fund, and on the other hand being able to call upon the concentrated power of a vested trade, that can bring all its
apparatus on to the spot within seven days or less and can at once bring to bear resources that are not available to the other side. It is not equal for both sides at the present time. There is not a chance for an equal appeal. The Government are there to see that there is, first of all, a fair chance for the public interest when a private interest is so eager and so concerned.
I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Baronet here to-day. He put his case with great cogency, and did the right thing in quoting from the trade papers themselves. I thought that the Under-Secretary was going beyond his brief in encroaching upon that ground. What better evidence could the hon. Baronet give than the evidence taken from the papers themselves? He brings that evidence to show what pressure is being brought to bear; a pressure that is deflecting public opinion; a pressure that strikes at everything that has built up the electoral law in this country during generations. I ask the Under-Secretary, as representing the Government, to look upon this subject as being one with which we are greatly concerned. The opponents of the Measure are concerned about it, and the supporters of the Measure are concerned. They made their appeal to this House, in what was a Debate of very great interest throughout the country, upon this ground: "Let the people decide for themselves." The hon. Gentleman must be satisfied that that procedure is now being set upon a fair basis. With the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman, let him think of what steps can be taken to give the House of Commons what was promised in the course of that Debate.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which the hon. Baronet based his speech. As far as my personal knowledge goes, he was inaccurate at least in some of his points. The evidence he produced was from the "Daily Mail." That is hardly a good source of information on any subject, and it is certainly not a good source of information on this subject. I am a member of the association in the town in which I live, and I know that an accurate record was made of every car that came into the division. The actual numbers
reported in were not 500 but 251; that is a very big difference. If the figures quoted by the hon. Baronet in this matter are as inaccurate as those quoted by him in regard to the other, I am afraid that his case is not a very good one. Equally, his percentages of the numbers who recorded their votes are inaccurate. In the case of Walthamstow, one of the towns mentioned, the figures for those who actually voted in the election, at least on the Sunday Cinema Bill, was something like 33 and a decimal per cent. I do not think that there has ever been, either in Walthamstow or in any local election, so high a percentage of voters as there was on the Sunday opening. There again, the hon. Baronet's information, to put it mildly, was very far from being accurate.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last talked about the scales being unequally balanced against those who were in opposition to Sunday opening. That may be so, and is possibly and probably the truth, but it is not their fault that the scales were unequally balanced. They made just as big an effort to get motorcars and other sources of support against Sunday opening as I and others who believe in Sunday opening made to get motor-cars and other means of support for Sunday opening. The only difference between the two sides is that on that occasion I happened to be on the winning side and the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) on the losing side. We were more successful in getting means of support than they were. But is not there a good deal of hypocrisy on the part of them both in this matter? Do not both of them in their ordinary elections use every motorcar they can get, and is it not true that in many constituencies—probably in the two represented by both hon. Gentlemen—they use any motor-cars put at their disposal?

Sir B. PETO: That is a perfectly absurd statement.

Mr. McENTEE: I thought that was the remark. Whether it is or is not, the particular division represented by the hon. Baronet is of little consequence, but the fact remains that it is a common thing for six, seven, eight and nine motor-cars to be used in some by-elections in the interests of the party to
which both hon. Gentleman apparently belong. We do not squeal in those cases. I have gone to a General Election myself with one motor-car, and that broke down half-way through the first day I had it, and the rest of the election I had to do without it. My opponent probably had 80 or 90 motor-cars, and I did not squeal, although I lost!

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Nobody has objected to the use of motor-cars, that I know of. Certainly I have not. But there is, surely, a difference between a fleet of motor-cars used by a vested interest and by a group of people who are only concerned to defend the public interest.

Mr. McENTEE: May I say, in reply, that both hon. Gentlemen have defended vested interests all their lives, and it is the vested interests that supplied the motor-cars that they used during the General Election?

Mr. FOOT: You are in the vested interests this time.

Mr. McENTEE: But why use the argument at all? The hon. Gentleman in his interjection said that nobody had mentioned it. I am reminding him that 500 were mentioned in the case of Waltham-stow, and it is only because it was mentioned that I am making this reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). Personally, I do not want to see undue influence used in this matter, but in no election in which I have ever taken part—and I have contested 24 altogether—has undue influence not been used. In many cases it has been used against me, and in some of those cases with considerable success.
After all, however, what is undue influence in regard to Sunday opening? Is it not undue influence for a pretty girl —as the Under-Secretary says—to come over from some of the cinemas or some place connected with cinemas and try to
influence the voters? Is it not undue influence when certain clergymen—a great number of them in my constituency, by the way—speak Sunday after Sunday for two or three Sundays before the election against Sunday opening? Is that not undue influence? Undue influence seems only to exist on one side. The hon. Baronet is not quite a good sport. Neither he nor the hon. Gentleman is a good sport; they are being badly beaten, and because they are being badly beaten they are squealing.
With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and others, if I found there was any truth in the statement they made I should certainly be with them in regard to the labour conditions, as I think would most Members of this House who had anything to do with the passing of the Sunday Cinemas Act. It was the definite and, I believe, the unanimous intention of the House, that Sunday opening should not in any way increase beyond six the number of days on which people engaged in the cinema industry were to be employed. Frankly I think I am as much interested in conditions of labour as any Member of the House, and that I have given as much voluntary service as any Member to making those conditions decent. but I have not seen any real evidence of a desire—I do not say there will not be— to extend the hours of labour beyond the six days that the Act contemplated. I hope that those who have been beaten in nearly every contest that has taken place in the constituencies, particularly in and around London, on the question of Sunday opening, will be better "sports" and take their beatings in a better way in future.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Ten o'Clock.